CDZ Questions regarding "Climate Change"

[SSDD]

Do you have proof they are paid to come to conclusions for monetary reasons and not because it's what they actually believe?

Nice little fallacy you have built yourself there...you don't accept information unless it comes from "approved" sources and the "approved" sources don't want to talk about the amounts of money they receive from the government and whether they would get that money if they said that man made climate change is a non issue.

There is a great deal of government power riding on the continuation of the climate change crisis...and anyone who thinks that government types would willingly give up that sort of power, is naive in the extreme.

 

[cnm]

Tell me what studies you can point to that say they're pretty much all saying the same thing. Because quite frankly I do not believe that is the case.

Here we go, a study you can dismiss out of hand...

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
[...] During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.​

 

[cnm]

Measuring CO2 on an active volcano is like measuring air pollution from your car's exhaust pipe.

Do you really think the scientists who set up the station didn't consider that point? Really?

 

[SSDD]

In science, consensus is only a symptom of group think.....it doesn't mean that they are correct....in fact, history tells us that in science, when a consensus forms, they are usually wrong...especially in relatively new fields of science such as climate science..

 

[task0778]

Tell me what studies you can point to that say they're pretty much all saying the same thing. Because quite frankly I do not believe that is the case.

Here we go, a study you can dismiss out of hand...

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
[...] During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.​

Since I cannot read the paper, I cannot comment on it's veracity. However, the author himself admitted this:

3. I do not directly obtain the percentage who accept AGW, but infer it from the number of abstracts and authors who reject the theory, as explained in my articles in Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society. Some will argue to the contrary that unless an author explicitly endorses the theory in question, one cannot know whether that author accepts the theory. Hogwash. Surveys of the peer-reviewed literature not only on AGW but on Darwinian evolution, impact cratering, and plate tectonics show beyond a shadow of a doubt that authors seldom endorse the ruling paradigm of their discipline.

So, basically this study says that if you don't explicitly say that AGW is not true then he counts it as endorsing AGW, and THAT is bullshit. I hafta laugh, he says the consensus i above 99.99%, which is utterly ridiculous to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. I'm done here, this is a waste of time.

 

[cnm]

Here we go, a study you can dismiss out of hand...

[...] I'm done here, this is a waste of time.

I love it when a plan comes together.

 

[task0778]

Here we go, a study you can dismiss out of hand...

[...] I'm done here, this is a waste of time.

I love it when a plan comes together.

Well done, if you can't beat 'em with brilliance, baffle them with BS. Just one serious question before I go, do you really believe that 99.99% of all climate scientists believe that AGW is the primary cause of CC? Do you accept the observation that the absence of "NO" equates to "YES"?

 

[cnm]

Does it matter? You won't give a percentage of climate scientists you consider to disagree with the consensus, or any number for that matter, while you reserve the right to contest the numbers studies put forward.

Anyway, so what if it's actually 95% or even 90% rather than 99.99%? That's still consensus in my book. Are you prepared to say at what percentage consensus ends or begins in your world?

And yes, when it comes to climate science papers, which is what is being discussed, if climate scientists do not deny the consensus they accept it tacitly, as the author of the abstract asserts.

 

[SSDD]

Here we go, a study you can dismiss out of hand...

[...] I'm done here, this is a waste of time.

I love it when a plan comes together.

Being so uninteresting that it is clear that you have nothing to contribute is a plan?

 

[oldsoul]

You don't approach this matter scientifically because it's a partisan issue for you.

Would you say that this is NOT a partisan issue for most everyone discussing it in the public policy/opinion realm?

 

[oldsoul]

FWIW, here's my biggest problem with AGW adherents, especially the "scientists":
Hypocrisy. First let's define the word. Definition of HYPOCRISY definines it as follows:
Hypocrisy: 1) "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel"
2)"an act or instance of hypocrisy"
"Behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel" Wow, that seems to sum it up right there, doesn't it? How many people are PUBLICLY speaking out against all these "climate change summits" and "climate change conferences"? Now, to be clear, I have no issue with them happening. What I have an issue with is people flying from all over the world (often on private jets, and multiple times a year) to attend these summits. Thirty years ago, unavoidable, now (with Skype and other such internet based services), not so much. So, when these "summits" and "conferences" start being online only events, I'll start taking the suggestions from them more seriously.

In other words, when the proponents of AGW start practicing what they preach, I'll start listening. Until then...

 

[SSDD]

FWIW, here's my biggest problem with AGW adherents, especially the "scientists":
Hypocrisy. First let's define the word. Definition of HYPOCRISY definines it as follows:
Hypocrisy: 1) "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel"
2)"an act or instance of hypocrisy"
"Behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel" Wow, that seems to sum it up right there, doesn't it? How many people are PUBLICLY speaking out against all these "climate change summits" and "climate change conferences"? Now, to be clear, I have no issue with them happening. What I have an issue with is people flying from all over the world (often on private jets, and multiple times a year) to attend these summits. Thirty years ago, unavoidable, now (with Skype and other such internet based services), not so much. So, when these "summits" and "conferences" start being online only events, I'll start taking the suggestions from them more seriously.

In other words, when the proponents of AGW start practicing what they preach, I'll start listening. Until then...

I'll start listening when they can show some observed, measured data which demonstrates that the climate change we are experiencing is different from natural variability...

 

[oldsoul]

FWIW, here's my biggest problem with AGW adherents, especially the "scientists":
Hypocrisy. First let's define the word. Definition of HYPOCRISY definines it as follows:
Hypocrisy: 1) "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel"
2)"an act or instance of hypocrisy"
"Behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel" Wow, that seems to sum it up right there, doesn't it? How many people are PUBLICLY speaking out against all these "climate change summits" and "climate change conferences"? Now, to be clear, I have no issue with them happening. What I have an issue with is people flying from all over the world (often on private jets, and multiple times a year) to attend these summits. Thirty years ago, unavoidable, now (with Skype and other such internet based services), not so much. So, when these "summits" and "conferences" start being online only events, I'll start taking the suggestions from them more seriously.

In other words, when the proponents of AGW start practicing what they preach, I'll start listening. Until then...

I'll start listening when they can show some observed, measured data which demonstrates that the climate change we are experiencing is different from natural variability...

That would be nice too. The way I see it if it's such a problem, then why are they fine with such high carbon emissions to come together to discuss how high carbon emissions are bad? Makes no sense. It would be like a highway billboard informing us how distracting highway billboards are.

 

[sartre play]

Have read many conflicting views, as I have no degrees in any field of global warming/climate change science have concluded that scientists working for the oil & gas industry don't support any man made changes, what or why the other side supports some very extreme views have yet to discover. so keep it simple, any thing (I call it pollution) that hurts our water or air is bad & should be regulated..

 

[SSDD]

Have read many conflicting views, as I have no degrees in any field of global warming/climate change science have concluded that scientists working for the oil & gas industry don't support any man made changes, what or why the other side supports some very extreme views have yet to discover. so keep it simple, any thing (I call it pollution) that hurts our water or air is bad & should be regulated..

So are you calling CO2 pollution?

 

[wamose]

I'm open minded about most things but when climate alarmists changed the name from global warming to climate change, I became a doubter. Climate change means nothing. It's what has been happening since the beginning of time. The alarmists are now blaming climate change for hurricanes, tornados, floods, fires, landslides and every other natural calamity known to man. The term climate change is just too vague to get excited about.

 

[sonalex]

I am a believer in the theory that we humans contribute to warming but I also think there are natural processes happening also. I am not a proponent of drastic measures to try and cut back on CO2, or eliminate cow farts.

 

[Elton]

I am a believer in the theory that we humans contribute to warming but I also think there are natural processes happening also. I am not a proponent of drastic measures to try and cut back on CO2, or eliminate cow farts.

So far I have seen no evidence for it, but there is always a chance that some will be found.

 

[SSDD]

I am a believer in the theory that we humans contribute to warming but I also think there are natural processes happening also. I am not a proponent of drastic measures to try and cut back on CO2, or eliminate cow farts.

I used to be...then spent about 30 years looking for actual evidence that we are responsible for anything more than very local variations in climate due to land use. I have been looking for 30 + years and have yet to find the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is anything other than natural variability.

And it is a hypothesis...not a theory. To call it a theory, is to infer that certain scientific principles have been adhered to and various things have happened to elevate the hypothesis to the status of theory...they have not.....and as far as hypotheses go, the man made global climate change hypothesis is a piss poor one.

Science isn't about belief. Science is about facts...this means that no one, or no consensus carries any authority whatsoever. Consider the Royal Society's motto...nullius in verb..."no one's word". even though the society has forgotten the meaning of the motto, it was put in place by actual scientists who actually stood for something. It was intended to express the "fellows" capacity to withstand the domination of the consensus and verify all statements on a hypothesis by an appeal to facts, verified by experiment and observation...climate science simply does not make the grade...

 

[gfm7175]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

For adherents to logic, "Climate Change" is a circularly-defined buzzword, thus meaningless, thus any argument based on it is a void argument.

[This following part is not my own argumentation, but info that I picked up from other people]

Now, according to Global Warming mythology, "Climate" is the goddess overseeing the central planning and administration of all weather, ecosystems, and local climates across the globe, as well as all interactions thereof.

"Climate Science" is the canonical name of the religious dogma of the Global Warming mythology.

Therefore, "Climate Change" would be an example of something called "Settled Science", which according to Global Warming mythology, is any element of Climate Science that runs counter to physics or is a logical fallacy.

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

There is none whatsoever. Global Warming is a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword. Belief in that religion leads one to not only reject logic, but to reject science and mathematics as well...

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

It's not. Not one bit. The religious AGW zealots reject science by rejecting the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.