Why does the greenhouse effect only work in one direction?

[ReinyDays]

It is cherry picking to select a temperature based on its value rather than one based on time or some other independent parameter. The idea was to see how much human CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution had pushed up the Earth's average temperature. If you want to select a specific temperature from the past, you aren't 'discovering' what the increase was, you're specifying the answer in advance. We do not ignore deforestation and land use changes. Their impact has been thoroughly discussed in every single IPCC Assessment Report. I frequently add deforestation as one of the components of anthropogenic warming. And, as others here like to point out, our increasing emissions and our increasing deforestation are all a result of our increasing population. Perhaps that is what we ought to be talking about first. But, in any case, it is bad logic to argue that we have to address one and not the other. We can address all of them at the same time. We HAVE to address all of them at the same time. There's enough cleverness around to solve these issues. The trouble is that cleverness gets swamped down by the fear and ignorance of the folks that can't seem to address a problem any further off than next week and a mile down the road.

Cherry picking is only using data that matches one's preconceived notions ... for example, only using the past fifty years of data to demonstrate a correlation ... this is a form of lying if looking at 100 years of data shows a much less correlation ... as ding has shown, there's very little correlation over the past 1,000 years ...

=====

Cherries ripen at different times even on the same tree ... the farmer has to go through his entire orchard picking the ripe cherries, then go through his entire orchard again a week later, then a another week later ... only picking the ripe cherries ... see that, "cherry-picking" ... taking what fits and leaving behind what doesn't ...

I'm sorry ... there's physics involved in these processes, and physics requires rigid formal mathematical proofs ... or it's strictly speculation ...

I started to read Dr. Mann's textbook on climatology ... when his scientific reputation is put on the line, there's 20 to 24 different factors that effect temperature (including CO2), all of which interact in strange and confusing ways ... surprising what these folks will say if their job is on the line ...

 

[ding]

I had a basis for my benchmark; pick the warmest time before the industrial revolution because we are measuring warming associated with man.

In other words, you could pick any time prior to the industrial revolution but if you are looking for a warming benchmark, you should pick the warmest point before the industrial revolution. Then it is unassailable unless of course you include urban heat effects in your data poibts when you are trying to measure the impact from CO2. In that case you are just a dirty filthy liar.

 

[ReinyDays]

I had a basis for my benchmark; pick the warmest time before the industrial revolution because we are measuring warming associated with man.

In other words, you could pick any time prior to the industrial revolution but if you are looking for a warming benchmark, you should pick the warmest point before the industrial revolution. Then it is unassailable unless of course you include urban heat effects in your data poibts when you are trying to measure the impact from CO2. In that case you are just a dirty filthy liar.

Temperatures have been higher than the IPCC predictions even here during the Holocene ... and higher still during inter-glacial maxima during the Pleistocene ... clear and convincing evidence on the USA West Coast of sea levels being ten to twenty feet higher than today ...

If global warming will cause us problems, then there should be plenty evidence of this ... the best we have is the agricultural revolution occurring during a period of much warmer temperatures ...

... but dirty filthy liars have to be dirty filthy liars I guess ...

 

[Crick]

I had a basis for my benchmark; pick the warmest time before the industrial revolution because we are measuring warming associated with man.

In other words, you could pick any time prior to the industrial revolution but if you are looking for a warming benchmark, you should pick the warmest point before the industrial revolution. Then it is unassailable unless of course you include urban heat effects in your data poibts when you are trying to measure the impact from CO2. In that case you are just a dirty filthy liar.

Then why don't we go back to a point that will show zero net warming? Or a point that will show the world has cooled? I don't care to discuss your ignorance any more. AGW began with the Industrial Revolution and that is the benchmark used by all of mainstream science for this particular question. Your opinion simply isn't worth shit.

 

[ding]

Then why don't we go back to a point that will show zero net warming? Or a point that will show the world has cooled? I don't care to discuss your ignorance any more. AGW began with the Industrial Revolution and that is the benchmark used by all of mainstream science for this particular question. Your opinion simply isn't worth shit.

Because that's not the objective. The objective is to pick the warmest point prior to industrialization to represent a fair benchmark.

Picking a lower benchmark temperature when the objective was to measure warming above natural forces would be as silly as choosing a data set which included the urban effect when one was trying to measure the effect of CO2.

 

[ding]

AGW began with the Industrial Revolution

That's still to be determined. Natural forces have not been ruled out. It's still being investigated.

 

[Crick]

You claim its being investigated. Multiple surveys of the published literature tell us that is simply not true. It WAS investigated and almost every scientist on the planet has become convinced that greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions is the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]

Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806.
146. Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.
147. ^ Tol, Richard S J (1 April 2016). "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'". Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing. 11 (4): 048001. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8001T. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001. ISSN 1748-9326.
148. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
149. ^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
150. ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
151. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
152. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.

 

[Crick]

That's still to be determined. Natural forces have not been ruled out. It's still being investigated.

You claim its being investigated. Multiple surveys of the published literature tell us that is simply not true. It WAS investigated and almost every scientist on the planet has become convinced that greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions is the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.

From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific consensus on climate change

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]

Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]


2. Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806.
146. Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.
147. ^ Tol, Richard S J (1 April 2016). "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'". Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing. 11 (4): 048001. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8001T. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001. ISSN 1748-9326.
148. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
149. ^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
150. ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
151. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
152. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".

Unless they included what percentage of warming was caused by humans, it's a stupid consensus.

 

[ding]

You claim its being investigated. Multiple surveys of the published literature tell us that is simply not true. It WAS investigated and almost every scientist on the planet has become convinced that greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions is the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]

Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806.
146. Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.
147. ^ Tol, Richard S J (1 April 2016). "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'". Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing. 11 (4): 048001. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8001T. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001. ISSN 1748-9326.
148. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
149. ^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
150. ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
151. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
152. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.

It's still being investigated as this recently published paper demonstrates.

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

 

[ding]

Unless they included what percentage of warming was caused by humans, it's a stupid consensus.

It's actually worse than that. They included the urban effect and cherry picked TSI datasets.

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

The panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports.

In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here are the comments from the authors of the paper.

Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES): “The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.” The 72 page review (18 figures, 2 tables and 544 references) explicitly avoided the IPCC’s consensus-driven approach in that the authors agreed to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement. Indeed, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed, but they agreed for this paper to fairly present the competing arguments among the scientific community for each of these issues, and let the reader make up their own mind. Several co-authors spoke of how this process of objectively reviewing the pros and cons of competing scientific arguments for the paper has given them fresh ideas for their own future research. The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach.​

​

Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Professor of Theoretical Physics and Geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM): “This paper is very special in that all 23 co-authors set aside our research directions and specialties to produce a fair and balanced scientific review on the subject of sun-climate connections that the UN IPCC reports had mostly missed or simply neglected.”​

​

Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy): “The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this very issue.”​

​

Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo, Norway:​

“This study clearly demonstrates the high importance of carefully looking into all aspects of all available data. Obviously, the old saying ‘Nullius in verba’ is still highly relevant in modern climate research.”​

​

Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.): “During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose. The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own planetary systems.”​

​

Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia: “The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term climate changes. This paper steers the scientific priority in the right direction.”​

​

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):​

“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”​

​

WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society (UK): “The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. This review paper blows open the mystery and explains why it has been so difficult to make scientific advances so far. It will take the real understanding of fluid dynamics and magnetism on both the Sun and Earth to find the next big leap forward.”​

​

Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an, China: “Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength impacts and responses.”​

​

Ana G. Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología in the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán (FACET-UNT), Argentina: “The importance of this work lies in presenting a broader perspective, showing that all the relevant long-term trend climate variability forcings, and not just the anthropogenic ones (as has been done mostly), must be considered. The way in which the role of these forcings is estimated, such as the case of solar and geomagnetic activity, is also important, without minimizing any one in pursuit of another. Even the Earth’s magnetic field could play a role in climate.”​

​

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991: “We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to understanding climate change.”​

​

László Szarka, from the ELKH Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science (Hungary) and also a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences: “This review is a crucial milestone on the way to restoring the scientific definition of ‘climate change’ that has become gradually distorted over the last three decades. The scientific community should finally realize that in science there is no authority or consensus; only the right to seek the truth.”​

 

[Crick]

The number of scientists publishing papers over the past 5 years, which conclude that "natural forces" are the primary cause of the warming observed over the past 150 years is, for all practical purposes, ZERO. There is not fucking debate. And Todd, YOU sound desperate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's just me chuckling at you.

 

[Crick]

Todd, that's just you and all the other deniers threatening the well-being of my children and their children and their children. I have my first grandchild on the way and I am VERY concerned about what the world she grows up in will be like. You are holding a weapon raised against my children. So forgive me if I don't enjoy attempts to make the topic something to chuckle about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, that's just you and all the other deniers threatening the well-being of my children and their children and their children. I have my first grandchild on the way and I am VERY concerned about what the world she grows up in will be like. You are holding a weapon raised against my children. So forgive me if I don't enjoy attempts to make the topic something to chuckle about.

You need to stop releasing CO2, for the children.
And grow all your food using a stick to plant your seeds.
I'll miss your whiny wisdom.

 

[Crick]

Do you think the lives of my children are a joke Todd?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think the lives of my children are a joke Todd?

If you want to invest in green energy because you feel your grandchildren will
see a good rate of return, you should definitely do that.

If you think the government should force me to invest in green energy, taking money away from my children and grandchildren, whether through direct taxes or through green mandates which raise my energy costs, well then you should just fuck right off.

 

[Crick]

Then I will just fuck right off because just as we all pay taxes to fund the military, Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, the EPA, the FDA and a dozen other agencies whose purpose is our well being, so do we all have to chip in with the cost of addressing AGW. If you disagree, vote for Trump again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then I will just fuck right off because just as we all pay taxes to fund the military, Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, the EPA, the FDA and a dozen other agencies whose purpose is our well being, so do we all have to chip in with the cost of addressing AGW. If you disagree, vote for Trump again.

You pay taxes for the Fed?

 

[ding]

The number of scientists publishing papers over the past 5 years, which conclude that "natural forces" are the primary cause of the warming observed over the past 150 years is, for all practical purposes, ZERO. There is not fucking debate. And Todd, YOU sound desperate.

This is far from settled. We are just started to get past the bias that is preventing honest dialogue and debate. Your argument serves no other purpose than to attempt to impede investigation. Shame on you. Science is never settled. There is no consensus. This paper proves there is no consensus.

"...Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress...."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131/pdf