AGW Fraud: There's no such thing as "Settled Science"

[daveman]

There have now been FOUR surveys of various sizes that have all found that 97% of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming.

Are they ever going to get around to proving it with the scientific method?

There is no such thing as proof in the natural sciences. I suggest you do some reading on the scientific method.

No need. The scientific method is based on repeatability and falsifiability -- two things AGW "science" lacks.

I think it's time that folks claiming the 97% is hocum, get their asses called on it. It's a very solid number. And it's certainly enormously better than any number you've got., isn't it.

A thousand years ago, 97% of scientists believed the world was flat.

How'd that work out?

This is supposed to be science, not a middle-school popularity contest.

 

[Abraham3]

Are they ever going to get around to proving it with the scientific method?

There is no such thing as proof in the natural sciences. I suggest you do some reading on the scientific method.

No need. The scientific method is based on repeatability and falsifiability -- two things AGW "science" lacks.

I think it's time that folks claiming the 97% is hocum, get their asses called on it. It's a very solid number. And it's certainly enormously better than any number you've got., isn't it.

A thousand years ago, 97% of scientists believed the world was flat.

How'd that work out?

This is supposed to be science, not a middle-school popularity contest.

Please explain to me how a new hypothesis becomes an accepted theory.

 

[Abraham3]

A majority of people who believe in anthropogenic global warming espouse political and economic "solutions" that will do nothing but increase government power over individual lives.

Please explain. Of what political and economic solutions do you speak and how will they increase government power over individual lives?

The solutions I see are carbon taxes, cap and trade programs, building a hydrogen infrastructure and moving to fuel cells for transportation and alternative technologies for power (wind, solar thermal, solar PV, nuclear, hydro, OTEC, etc). I do not see that any of these will increase government power over individual lives.

 

[daveman]

There is no such thing as proof in the natural sciences. I suggest you do some reading on the scientific method.

No need. The scientific method is based on repeatability and falsifiability -- two things AGW "science" lacks.

I think it's time that folks claiming the 97% is hocum, get their asses called on it. It's a very solid number. And it's certainly enormously better than any number you've got., isn't it.

A thousand years ago, 97% of scientists believed the world was flat.

How'd that work out?

This is supposed to be science, not a middle-school popularity contest.

Please explain to me how a new hypothesis becomes an accepted theory.

Immaterial. We're told that AGW is an unquestionable fact. "The science is settled!"

REAL science is never settled.

 

[orogenicman]

No need. The scientific method is based on repeatability and falsifiability -- two things AGW "science" lacks.

A thousand years ago, 97% of scientists believed the world was flat.

How'd that work out?

This is supposed to be science, not a middle-school popularity contest.

Please explain to me how a new hypothesis becomes an accepted theory.

Immaterial. We're told that AGW is an unquestionable fact. "The science is settled!"

REAL science is never settled.

The fact that gravity exists is settled. Exactly what gravity is is not entirely settled, though we have some good ideas on the matter. The fact that AGW is happening is settled. Exactly how bad it will get, and what can be done about it - that is not entirely settled. But we do have some good ideas wrt to those issues. That is real science.

 

[daveman]

A majority of people who believe in anthropogenic global warming espouse political and economic "solutions" that will do nothing but increase government power over individual lives.

Please explain. Of what political and economic solutions do you speak and how will they increase government power over individual lives?

The solutions I see are carbon taxes, cap and trade programs, building a hydrogen infrastructure and moving to fuel cells for transportation and alternative technologies for power (wind, solar thermal, solar PV, nuclear, hydro, OTEC, etc). I do not see that any of these will increase government power over individual lives.

Really? In much of the world, you can't buy an incandescent light bulb.

Cap and Trade isn't about the environment. It's about socialism.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters

And if the government's taking more of your money away from you, it's increasing its power over you.

This is just the beginning.

 

[daveman]

Please explain to me how a new hypothesis becomes an accepted theory.

Immaterial. We're told that AGW is an unquestionable fact. "The science is settled!"

REAL science is never settled.

The fact that gravity exists is settled. Exactly what gravity is is not entirely settled, though we have some good ideas on the matter. The fact that AGW is happening is settled. Exactly how bad it will get, and what can be done about it - that is not entirely settled. But we do have some good ideas wrt to those issues. That is real science.

WRONG. The climate has always changed. Man's role in this change, if any, however, is NOT settled.

To claim it is is a matter of faith.

 

[bripat9643]

A majority of people who believe in anthropogenic global warming espouse political and economic "solutions" that will do nothing but increase government power over individual lives.

Please explain. Of what political and economic solutions do you speak and how will they increase government power over individual lives?

The solutions I see are carbon taxes, cap and trade programs, building a hydrogen infrastructure and moving to fuel cells for transportation and alternative technologies for power (wind, solar thermal, solar PV, nuclear, hydro, OTEC, etc). I do not see that any of these will increase government power over individual lives.

Only idiots like you that believe Obamacare won't increase government power over our lives. If you don't think forcing everyone to switch from cheap sources of power to more expensive and less reliable sources of power won't give government control over you, then you are simply too stupid to bother debating.

 

[bripat9643]

I think it's time that folks claiming the 97% is hocum, get their asses called on it. It's a very solid number. And it's certainly enormously better than any number you've got., isn't it.

A thousand years ago, 97% of scientists believed the world was flat.

How'd that work out?

This is supposed to be science, not a middle-school popularity contest.

as little as 40 years ago 97% of geologists insisted the continents were stationary. Now the theory of continental drift is universally accepted.

 

[orogenicman]

Immaterial. We're told that AGW is an unquestionable fact. "The science is settled!"

REAL science is never settled.

The fact that gravity exists is settled. Exactly what gravity is is not entirely settled, though we have some good ideas on the matter. The fact that AGW is happening is settled. Exactly how bad it will get, and what can be done about it - that is not entirely settled. But we do have some good ideas wrt to those issues. That is real science.

WRONG. The climate has always changed. Man's role in this change, if any, however, is NOT settled.

To claim it is is a matter of faith.

Whether or not the climate has always varied, and no one has ever said that it doesn't, it is very clear that the data we have is showing anthropomorphic warming. You cannot emit 29 billion tons of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere each year and have it do nothing. CO2 is not a neutral gas, nor is it NOT a greenhouse gas. I'm not going to go through all the evidence that demonstrates our contribution to the current warming, as it has been posted ad infinitum here and elsewhere (and besides, I suspect that no amount or type of data would convince you). Of course, you have every right to ignore the science; a lot of people just like you do just that. Fortunately, scientists aren't ignoring it, and so they will continue to monitor the situation and collected more data, despite what you might believe.

 

[orogenicman]

A majority of people who believe in anthropogenic global warming espouse political and economic "solutions" that will do nothing but increase government power over individual lives.

Please explain. Of what political and economic solutions do you speak and how will they increase government power over individual lives?

The solutions I see are carbon taxes, cap and trade programs, building a hydrogen infrastructure and moving to fuel cells for transportation and alternative technologies for power (wind, solar thermal, solar PV, nuclear, hydro, OTEC, etc). I do not see that any of these will increase government power over individual lives.

Idiots like you that Obamacare won't increase government power over our lives. If you don't think forcing everyone to switch from cheap sources of power to more expensive and less reliable sources of power won't give government control over you, then you are simply too stupid to bother debating.

These are the exact same lame arguments we've heard wrt seat belts, motorcycle rider helmets, air bags, second hand smoke, and a whole host of other such issues. Honestly, you are such an anti-technology whiner, it really is beyond belief.

 

[gslack]

The fact that gravity exists is settled. Exactly what gravity is is not entirely settled, though we have some good ideas on the matter. The fact that AGW is happening is settled. Exactly how bad it will get, and what can be done about it - that is not entirely settled. But we do have some good ideas wrt to those issues. That is real science.

WRONG. The climate has always changed. Man's role in this change, if any, however, is NOT settled.

To claim it is is a matter of faith.

Whether or not the climate has always varied, and no one has ever said that it doesn't, it is very clear that the data we have is showing anthropomorphic warming. You cannot emit 29 billion tons of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere each year and have it do nothing. CO2 is not a neutral gas, nor is it NOT a greenhouse gas. I'm not going to go through all the evidence that demonstrates our contribution to the current warming, as it has been posted ad infinitum here and elsewhere (and besides, I suspect that no amount or type of data would convince you). Of course, you have every right to ignore the science; a lot of people just like you do just that. Fortunately, scientists aren't ignoring it, and so they will continue to monitor the situation and collected more data, despite what you might believe.

And yet, as CO2 has continued to increase there has been NO corresponding warming over the last 15 years...

It's the same problem sock, no matter who you try and pretend you are when you gloss over it... No warming, yet CO2 increased, ergo warming not caused by CO2...It' simple logic dumbass..

 

[gslack]

Please explain. Of what political and economic solutions do you speak and how will they increase government power over individual lives?

The solutions I see are carbon taxes, cap and trade programs, building a hydrogen infrastructure and moving to fuel cells for transportation and alternative technologies for power (wind, solar thermal, solar PV, nuclear, hydro, OTEC, etc). I do not see that any of these will increase government power over individual lives.

Idiots like you that Obamacare won't increase government power over our lives. If you don't think forcing everyone to switch from cheap sources of power to more expensive and less reliable sources of power won't give government control over you, then you are simply too stupid to bother debating.

These are the exact same lame arguments we've heard wrt seat belts, motorcycle rider helmets, air bags, second hand smoke, and a whole host of other such issues. Honestly, you are such an anti-technology whiner, it really is beyond belief.

No it's not sock..

What this is, is a fundamental change in the way we live.. And not to mention the way the poorer countries would have to live..

Make fossil fuels harder to buy and who suffers the most? Me? You? Nah, we still have public transport and many of us will still be able to afford it.. But what about people who can barely even afford energy costs now? Or those who actually can't but have to so they don't eat that day or barely eat all month.. WHat about contries where 70% or more of the population live that type of existence or worse?

What are you going to do? Tell them, "sorry you can't buy coal to power your utilities, you emit too much CO2..." Or like they do right now in some of the poorer countries that have coal.. The UN doesn't protect poorer contries like they claim. They, through WTO, allow foreign companies to buy up coal mines and drilling/mining is either stopped altogether, or put on hold any number of reasons. And that coal IF it is mined, doesn't go to fuel that country. It goes to other countries who can pay a better price...

Why do you think we are the top tier in coal reserves on the planet, yet we import so much of our coal from Columbia?

Quarterly Coal Report - Energy Information Administration

Simple... A fine example of the last clean air interstate rule in action. The rule demands lower sulfur coal, so we sell our higher sulfur coal and use the lower sulfur we have but it's not enough so we import from places in south america, like columbia. But there's another reason they don't mention.. It's a better deal to sell to countries with fewer options... Catching on yet simpleton?

And this is just the tip of the iceberg, with you morons.. The UN pases sanctions on any country receiving aid until they comply with their eco-BS.. Meaning countries who can't afford to live on solar panels and wind farm energy, who don't have the water supply to go hydro, and not allowed to make nuclear power, will either pay the higher priced coal and suffer the UN sanctions, or suffer without.

It's population control on a grand scale, and you saps are helping it along...WHat do you think allowed such rapid growth and extended life expectancies as well as live birth rates we and other first world countries have? Fossil fuels... And more importantly their control...Fossil fuels gave freedom to the masses on a scale that nothing can touch...And now that freedom and growth and all around better life, is scaring the crap out of people in power.

If you have a billion pounds of gold on the planet, and you are in charge of it, you don't want 10 billion people with their hands out. The more people you have the more resources they will need, simple as that. Wealth as we know it know will be effected with population growth, and the overall standard of living increases. We see it already.. China and India become economic powers and what happened? We steadily lose our clout.. WHy? Because there is only so much of everything to go around, more hands in the pot the less there is in it...

You think the UN is about fairness and justice for world? BS, it's about controlling the zoo..

Better grow up daydreamer, you are being used...

 

[daveman]

I think it's time that folks claiming the 97% is hocum, get their asses called on it. It's a very solid number. And it's certainly enormously better than any number you've got., isn't it.

A thousand years ago, 97% of scientists believed the world was flat.

How'd that work out?

This is supposed to be science, not a middle-school popularity contest.

as little as 40 years ago 97% of geologists insisted the continents were stationary. Now the theory of continental drift is universally accepted.

Indeed. Immovable continents was "settled science", too.

 

[daveman]

The fact that gravity exists is settled. Exactly what gravity is is not entirely settled, though we have some good ideas on the matter. The fact that AGW is happening is settled. Exactly how bad it will get, and what can be done about it - that is not entirely settled. But we do have some good ideas wrt to those issues. That is real science.

WRONG. The climate has always changed. Man's role in this change, if any, however, is NOT settled.

To claim it is is a matter of faith.

Whether or not the climate has always varied, and no one has ever said that it doesn't, it is very clear that the data we have is showing anthropomorphic warming. You cannot emit 29 billion tons of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere each year and have it do nothing. CO2 is not a neutral gas, nor is it NOT a greenhouse gas. I'm not going to go through all the evidence that demonstrates our contribution to the current warming, as it has been posted ad infinitum here and elsewhere (and besides, I suspect that no amount or type of data would convince you). Of course, you have every right to ignore the science; a lot of people just like you do just that. Fortunately, scientists aren't ignoring it, and so they will continue to monitor the situation and collected more data, despite what you might believe.

Correlation does not imply causation.

That's some of that REAL science stuff with which you may not be familiar.

 

[daveman]

WRONG. The climate has always changed. Man's role in this change, if any, however, is NOT settled.

To claim it is is a matter of faith.

Whether or not the climate has always varied, and no one has ever said that it doesn't, it is very clear that the data we have is showing anthropomorphic warming. You cannot emit 29 billion tons of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere each year and have it do nothing. CO2 is not a neutral gas, nor is it NOT a greenhouse gas. I'm not going to go through all the evidence that demonstrates our contribution to the current warming, as it has been posted ad infinitum here and elsewhere (and besides, I suspect that no amount or type of data would convince you). Of course, you have every right to ignore the science; a lot of people just like you do just that. Fortunately, scientists aren't ignoring it, and so they will continue to monitor the situation and collected more data, despite what you might believe.

And yet, as CO2 has continued to increase there has been NO corresponding warming over the last 15 years...

It's the same problem sock, no matter who you try and pretend you are when you gloss over it... No warming, yet CO2 increased, ergo warming not caused by CO2...It' simple logic dumbass..

They don't do logic. You can tell because now they claim warm water is sinking to the bottom of the oceans to try to explain where the heat is going.

 

[daveman]

Please explain. Of what political and economic solutions do you speak and how will they increase government power over individual lives?

The solutions I see are carbon taxes, cap and trade programs, building a hydrogen infrastructure and moving to fuel cells for transportation and alternative technologies for power (wind, solar thermal, solar PV, nuclear, hydro, OTEC, etc). I do not see that any of these will increase government power over individual lives.

Idiots like you that Obamacare won't increase government power over our lives. If you don't think forcing everyone to switch from cheap sources of power to more expensive and less reliable sources of power won't give government control over you, then you are simply too stupid to bother debating.

These are the exact same lame arguments we've heard wrt seat belts, motorcycle rider helmets, air bags, second hand smoke, and a whole host of other such issues. Honestly, you are such an anti-technology whiner, it really is beyond belief.

No one here is anti-technology.

We are, however, anti-unsupportable, usustainable, unscalable, uneconomical, and unworkable technology.

You guys ***** and moan about subsidies for fossil fuels -- but wind and solar simply can't exist without them. And they never will.

 

[Abraham3]

A majority of people who believe in anthropogenic global warming espouse political and economic "solutions" that will do nothing but increase government power over individual lives.

Please explain. Of what political and economic solutions do you speak and how will they increase government power over individual lives?

The solutions I see are carbon taxes, cap and trade programs, building a hydrogen infrastructure and moving to fuel cells for transportation and alternative technologies for power (wind, solar thermal, solar PV, nuclear, hydro, OTEC, etc). I do not see that any of these will increase government power over individual lives.

Idiots like you that Obamacare won't increase government power over our lives.

This sentence is improperly formed. However, we're not discussing PPACA. We're discussing solutions to AGW.

If you don't think forcing everyone to switch from cheap sources of power to more expensive and less reliable sources of power won't give government control over you, then you are simply too stupid to bother debating.

The individual will not be forced to do anything. The utilities may be forced to switch to more costly alternative energy sources. That will raise the bill of the typical individual. There can be all manner of effects to raising people's bills but no matter what you think of me, you are going to have to explain how it increases the government's control over us. No change to the Bill of Rights is involved. No new laws regarding individual behavior are involved.

I think the problem here is not that I'm too stupid to debate but that you've made a claim you cannot support.

 

[Abraham3]

Idiots like you that Obamacare won't increase government power over our lives. If you don't think forcing everyone to switch from cheap sources of power to more expensive and less reliable sources of power won't give government control over you, then you are simply too stupid to bother debating.

These are the exact same lame arguments we've heard wrt seat belts, motorcycle rider helmets, air bags, second hand smoke, and a whole host of other such issues. Honestly, you are such an anti-technology whiner, it really is beyond belief.

No one here is anti-technology.

We are, however, anti-unsupportable, usustainable, unscalable, uneconomical, and unworkable technology.

You guys ***** and moan about subsidies for fossil fuels -- but wind and solar simply can't exist without them. And they never will.

Wind and solar can exist without subsidies. Subsidies were utilized to overcome inertia and get power companies to make the switch. Given that the price of wind-generated power is now below that of coal makes it ridiculous to claim they cannot profit from it. Solar has a higher initial investment but even lower maintenance and operation costs. Hydroelectric, geothermal, OTEC and nuclear powers are all used at different places around the world and make a profit for their owners. Your claims that alternative energies are unsupportable, unsustainable, unscalable, uneconomical and unworkable simply have no basis.

Something for you to think about: the prices of petroleum, coal and natural gas are going up and - in the long run - will never come back down. The costs of alternative energies ARE coming down and will continue to do so for a good long while.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The fact that gravity exists is settled. Exactly what gravity is is not entirely settled, though we have some good ideas on the matter. The fact that AGW is happening is settled. Exactly how bad it will get, and what can be done about it - that is not entirely settled. But we do have some good ideas wrt to those issues. That is real science.

WRONG. The climate has always changed. Man's role in this change, if any, however, is NOT settled.

To claim it is is a matter of faith.

Whether or not the climate has always varied, and no one has ever said that it doesn't, it is very clear that the data we have is showing anthropomorphic warming. You cannot emit 29 billion tons of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere each year and have it do nothing. CO2 is not a neutral gas, nor is it NOT a greenhouse gas. I'm not going to go through all the evidence that demonstrates our contribution to the current warming, as it has been posted ad infinitum here and elsewhere (and besides, I suspect that no amount or type of data would convince you). Of course, you have every right to ignore the science; a lot of people just like you do just that. Fortunately, scientists aren't ignoring it, and so they will continue to monitor the situation and collected more data, despite what you might believe.

Ohhhm 29 Beeeeeeelion tons it sounds so big. But half of it is absorbed by the oceans, correct?