I did so in a private conversation and I would say it was completely settled at this point. Just as an FYI, we are not supposed to talk about the contents of private conversations in public posts.
97 percent myth
- Thread starter Robert W
- Start date
- Sep 9, 2022
- 24,420
- 11,883
- 1,138
- Thread starter
- #62
I spoke of the complaints here on this public forum.
That's fine by me, I just didn't want you surprised by any moderator comments. Why don't we carry on with our Environment-oriented conversations?
- Sep 9, 2022
- 24,420
- 11,883
- 1,138
- Thread starter
- #64
Let me introduce Elon Musk to this topic given what he says mirrors my own statements.
I am against alarmism.
I believe in Earth.
I believe climate is not a single climate, but many many climates.
Climate is in perpetual change.
I believe blaming humans is short sighted. It hints strongly that a few published men are so knowledgeable the issue as said by Gore is settled. It seems not to be settled by me. Not settled by famous climate scientists.
Again on this hockey stick.
Illustrated correctly it is a long term X Axis with a very very small change to the Y axis.
2 or 3 or 4 degrees C is not significant. So far the duty of the alarmists is to prove their case.
So far they run on a single track. The track of CO2 and how powerful is the impact.
I am against alarmism.
I believe in Earth.
I believe climate is not a single climate, but many many climates.
Climate is in perpetual change.
I believe blaming humans is short sighted. It hints strongly that a few published men are so knowledgeable the issue as said by Gore is settled. It seems not to be settled by me. Not settled by famous climate scientists.
Again on this hockey stick.
Illustrated correctly it is a long term X Axis with a very very small change to the Y axis.
2 or 3 or 4 degrees C is not significant. So far the duty of the alarmists is to prove their case.
So far they run on a single track. The track of CO2 and how powerful is the impact.
Elon Must is not a climate scientist.
Please define alarmism and explain why you're against it.
What does that mean?
What bearing do you believe that has on AGW?
Yes. And...
Why?
Robert, you have taken the word of a few men. I am taking the word of thousands of them.
On what basis do you say that 2 or 3 or 4 degrees is not significant? The world's scientists disagree with you wholeheartedly.
CO2, deforestation, methane leakage, nitrous oxide.
I have to go. More later.
- Sep 9, 2022
- 24,420
- 11,883
- 1,138
- Thread starter
- #66
Elon Musk really is able to travel widely and express his views and be listened to in many countries.
I think you know Alarmism very well. When you post you engage in alarmism.
Many climates are not suited to this bit of magic called averaging. And this is the sum of what we are told is wrong. The average is too high.
It is wrong to blame man due to the outcome will be that using magic, man will learn to control climate. I know the Earth is far too massive for this to happen. Man would have to control many many things that impact climate and as you see yourself, even controlling one factor, a helpful gas, is not being well received by most of man. I think you disclosed a mere 27 percent believe they are to blame and that they can control climate.
I have taken the word of dozens of climate scientists and also some economists who have different ideas than shoving this myth of Carbon dioxide down our throats.
If several degrees C was significant, then Death Valley would shut down every summer since it heats up far more than 4 degrees C. We would not live a regular life. We wake up and it might be 28 degrees and 6 hours later it is 20 degrees hotter. All with no adverse impacts.
What is the common talk? Don't you believe it to be Carbon Dioxide? How can methane be controlled? And what can be done about nitrous oxide? And your solutions are what precisely?
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 15,427
- 5,223
- 210
Too late!
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Last edited:
- Sep 9, 2022
- 24,420
- 11,883
- 1,138
- Thread starter
- #69
A recent paper on predicting the future of Planet Earth is here in this link.
It brings up that the IPCC went way past the reasonable predictions and used faulty figures. This includes pretty charts and so forth.
Calm Down. Your children will not fry due to climate.
judithcurry.com
It brings up that the IPCC went way past the reasonable predictions and used faulty figures. This includes pretty charts and so forth.
Calm Down. Your children will not fry due to climate.
“Realistic” global warming projections for the 21st century
by Nicola Scafetta My new paper demonstrates that realistic emissions scenarios and climate sensitivity values & scenarios of natural climate variability produce more realistic, non-alarming s…
judithcurry.com
The RepubliCratic Duopoly Party(RCDP), don't leave sanity without it!
"We $tick to our party'$ RULE$ & REGULATION$ & you can somewhat kinda maybe bank on that...
...except when opportunities arise for US!"
"NO NEW TAXES!!!"
Below, a day that will live in infamy;
"Mr. President, Keep Your Promise: No New Taxes"
(Archived document, may contain errors) 769 May 18,1990 MR. PRESIDENT, KEEP YOUR PROMLSE NONEWTAXES Daniel J. Mitchell John M. Olin Fellow The policy most strongly associated with George Bush is best summarized in his now-famous statement, Read my lips: No new taxes. Now, not withstanding his...
www.heritage.org
John Q. Citizen; "I knew all along that he was gonna phuck us, but I had no ides that he was gonna phuck us to death."
I think that Elon Musk is not as brilliant as many people think he is. I think he has experienced success due to the odd responses between the public and Ausberger's Syndrome, from which he suffers. I know of no rason whatsoever that I would seek him out for his opinions on global warming.
If I warn you of a real threat, is that alarmism? I am utterly convinced that AGW is a real threat. I am not attempting to unduly alarm anyone. I am attempting to alarm as many people as I can to a real threat to all our wellbeing.
I'm sorry Robert, but that simply indicates you don't understand some basics. In many branches of science, but particularly in thermodynamics and heat transfer (non-equilibirum thermo), it is important when you first address a problem to identify the system boundaries. You can put them anywhere you like but there are advantages to some locations and disadvantages to others. You will need to be able to determine the energy and mass contents of the system and you will need to be able to determine the energy and mass flux across the boundaries. If you want to look at something that is affecting the entire Earth, like global warming, you put your boundaries around the entire planet. We calculate the mass and energy content of the planet and we determine the mass and energy flux into and out of the planet. That is how one first addresses global warming. When you want to get down into the weeds and see how global warming will affect northern China or the Indian Ocean or the American midwest, you can get into regional system boundaries. But if you just want to look at what is happening to the world as a whole, you put your boundaries at the top of the atmosphere and you go to town. There is nothing wrong with such an approach.
Who is responsible for all the concrete in the world Robert? Man. Who is responsible for all the trains, planes and automobiles in the world Robert? Man. Who has built every dam in the world Robert? Man. Who has removed billions and billions of tons of fish from the sea, Robert? Man. Who has bred crops and cattle and sheep to feed the world? Man. And who has pulled trillons of tons of coal and trillions of barrels of oil out of the ground and burned it for its energy Robert? Man. No one else.
No, Robert, you do not know that. You probably think it but you are simply wrong.
Man burned fossil fuel and spewed CO2 into the air for over a hundred years before it was given a second thought.
I have no recollection of saying anything about 27% and I have never, ever suggested that ANYONE can "control" the climate. We've had this out before. Don't accuse me of saying something unless you know for a fact that I said it Robert.
More than 99% of climate scientists believe that man is responsible and I am quite certain that they are the folks most likely to be correct on this particular question.
The conclusion of the IPCC and the conclusions of the vast majority of the world's climate scientists are not myths and no one is shoving them down your throat. They are treating them as important facts upon which your well being and the well being of the rest of the human race depend.
Robert, Death Valley warming by two degrees is not the same as the world warming by two degrees. Death Valley is a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the planet. And if, over the weekend, Death Valley warms by two degrees, other places will cool by the same amount.
Robert, have you had an aquarium? A pet lizard? An animal living in an enclosed space? If so, the enclosure had a thermometer and a means of maintaining specific temperatures. Why would that be Robert if life can take huge temperature swings without harm? Because it cannot. There is a difference between a hot day through which you have to travel from your air conditioned car to your air conditioned house and a hot day from which you cannot escape, from which no relief is available to you. People do die from too much heat and too little.
I have no idea what you mean by "common talk"
Don't employ rhetoric unless you have some reason to do so. We all know the solution. Stop emitting GHGs as rapidly as possible.
Last edited:
My god are you stupid.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
FY, liar.
I'm sorry Robert but I think the work of the hundreds of active scientists of the IPCC and the thousands of active scientists whose published work they assess is far, far, far more likely to be correct than is the opinion of one, retired, inactive, unemployed scientist.
I think it is Judith Curry that has made mistakes here. Please explain to me why you think you should believe her and reject the thousands of other scientists - scientists still actively conducting research on this topic - who disagree with her at just about every level. Why? What makes you think she deserves that much credit or that all those thousands of other scientists could ALL be wrong?
Robert, take my word that I am not attempting to insult you when I tell you that that was an exceptionally stupid remark.
I think you need to give a little more thought, before you post, as to how your comments are going to be received. Don't tell me to calm down, Robert, particularly with regards to the safety and well being of my children. Ever. Do you understand?
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Liar, liar, pantsonfuckingfire!
www.fraserinstitute.org
www.theguardian.com
wattsupwiththat.com
climatechangedispatch.com
lifepowered.org
climatechangedispatch.com
Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues
In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.
Climate scientists just debunked deniers' favorite argument | Dana Nuccitelli
Dana Nuccitelli: And in the process, illustrated the difference between skepticism and denial
www.theguardian.com
The myth of the 97% climate change consensus
What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree about global warming? Claims continue to be made that “97% o…
wattsupwiththat.com
Debunking The 97% Climate Consensus Myth Touted By Activists, Media
The idea that 97% of scientists agree that mankind is causing the Earth to warm is not just a myth, it is pure propaganda relentlessly pushed by activists.
climatechangedispatch.com
Is the Science Settled? The 97% Climate Consensus Myth
Do 97% of scientists really agree in catastrophic global warming? We read this popularly cited climate change study so you don't have to.
lifepowered.org
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - Climate Change Dispatch
climatechangedispatch.com
For god's sake how fucking OLD are you? 8?
You are SOooooo fucking stupid.Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues
In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.
Climate scientists just debunked deniers' favorite argument | Dana Nuccitelli
Dana Nuccitelli: And in the process, illustrated the difference between skepticism and denial
The myth of the 97% climate change consensus
What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree about global warming? Claims continue to be made that “97% o…
Debunking The 97% Climate Consensus Myth Touted By Activists, Media
The idea that 97% of scientists agree that mankind is causing the Earth to warm is not just a myth, it is pure propaganda relentlessly pushed by activists.
Is the Science Settled? The 97% Climate Consensus Myth
Do 97% of scientists really agree in catastrophic global warming? We read this popularly cited climate change study so you don't have to.
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - Climate Change Dispatch
Last edited:
JBG
Liberal democrat
They are attacking affluence. Except that their lives are comfortable, thank you.
Are GHG emissions still increasing?
Have they stopped?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Democrat's 'grotesque' blanket statement about Latinos sends internet ablaze- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
-
-
DHS hints at arrest of Wisconsin governor who ordered state workers to obstruct ICE- Started by marvin martian
- Replies: 4
-
-
