CDZ Climate Change "almost entirely man's fault"!

[konradv]

Give it up, fewer and fewer people are falling for the scam.

True, if you live in the right wing echo chamber. Not true, if you live in the real world.

It's VERY true in the real world. Ironically you deny reality, that makes you a denier.

In the real world most scientists agree that AGW is real. In the right wing echo chamber most scientists have abandoned or criticize AGW. That's because they only listen to the deniers and ignore the majority.

 

[konradv]

Oh, if the science is settled, you should have no problem telling us how much of a temperature increase or decrease is caused by 5PPM increments of CO2, right?

Not necessarily, because it does not follow that knowing one means one knows the other. What is known is that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and that energy must be conserved, i.e. if it's re-emitted towards earth increases in temp are inevitable.

 

[Ringel05]

Seems the comment above applies to both sides of he debate:

The most unscientific statement in the history of science is: "the science is settled".

The issue in my mind is this: What if they're wrong? If the vast majority of scientists are wrong there is still much to be gained in terms of green energy development and renewable energy sources; if they are right and we do nothing, what might we lose (or what might our posterity lose)?

I agree with your sentiment. But the blatant dishonesty with "the science is settled" is beyond the pale. AGW is not about science, it's about politics and agendas.

I agree with and believe we should pursue alternative energy. I want an "all of the above" approach to energy. We should use solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, oil, everything we can. The cleaner the better.

Government should use its resources to fund alternate energies, within reason. I don't see the benefit of funding a dozen more Solyndras....I just think we need to be careful where we invest our money. We also need to be sensible- oil is still the best and cheapest source of energy we've got.

Granted he most likely was implying AGW in total but what he stated In context was; "glacial melt, Arctic ice melt or rising sea levels" also 'bleached coral". Those are documented phenomenon (settled science) in and of themselves, apart from any causative conclusion, i.e. we know it's happening but (regardless of what some claim) we don't specifically why, that's where the real debate is.

 

[mamooth]

The most unscientific statement in the history of science is: "the science is settled".

According Zander here, anyone claiming that the round earth theory is "settled science" is part of a cult conspiracy to suppress the real science.

Good catch, Zander.

 

[PredFan]

Give it up people, the scam is over.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seems the comment above applies to both sides of he debate:

The most unscientific statement in the history of science is: "the science is settled".

The issue in my mind is this: What if they're wrong? If the vast majority of scientists are wrong there is still much to be gained in terms of green energy development and renewable energy sources; if they are right and we do nothing, what might we lose (or what might our posterity lose)?

I agree with your sentiment. But the blatant dishonesty with "the science is settled" is beyond the pale. AGW is not about science, it's about politics and agendas.

I agree with and believe we should pursue alternative energy. I want an "all of the above" approach to energy. We should use solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, oil, everything we can. The cleaner the better.

Government should use its resources to fund alternate energies, within reason. I don't see the benefit of funding a dozen more Solyndras....I just think we need to be careful where we invest our money. We also need to be sensible- oil is still the best and cheapest source of energy we've got.

I agree, but remember Solyndra was one failed well, how many dry wells have there been dug during our search for oil? I'm not suggesting we abandoned oil, for crude oil is used in many different and diverse ways. What I object to is the term Clean Coal, we've known since the killer fog in London that coal is a sometimes a deadly pollutant.

 

[Zander]

The most unscientific statement in the history of science is: "the science is settled".

According Zander here, anyone claiming that the round earth theory is "settled science" is part of a cult conspiracy to suppress the real science.

Good catch, Zander.

Thank you for making my point. There is no "round earth theory".

It's a scientific fact that the earth is not round. It is an oblate spheroid who's shape is constantly changing.

Of course, to some people the "earth is round" passes for "settled science"......we call those people ignorant fools.

 

[konradv]

Give it up people, the scam is over.

In the real world most scientists agree that AGW is real. In the right wing echo chamber most scientists have abandoned or criticize AGW. That's because they only listen to the deniers and ignore the majority.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Give it up people, the scam is over.

In the real world most scientists agree that AGW is real. In the right wing echo chamber most scientists have abandoned or criticize AGW. That's because they only listen to the deniers and ignore the majority.

science is not based on a majority but rather on science. AGW may not be an issue at all given the huge mistakes the "scientists" have made. Temperature has gone down for 20 years and hurricane activity has gone down too. Both of these huge mistakes should be enough to convince you that there is no science to AGW.

Worse, when people were not scared by AGW they switched the name to "climate change" just before we discovered that hurricane activity was falling rather than rising.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Give it up people, the scam is over.

It may well be a scam but Republicans may ignore the science too since they are so skeptical of liberal university professors, those living on govt grants, and those who support immense consolidation of govt to deal with AGW.

 

[konradv]

In the real world most scientists agree that AGW is real. In the right wing echo chamber most scientists have abandoned or criticize AGW. That's because they only listen to the deniers and ignore the majority.

science is not based on a majority but rather on science. AGW may not be an issue at all given the huge mistakes the "scientists" have made. Temperature has gone down for 20 years and hurricane activity has gone down too. Both of these huge mistakes should be enough to convince you that there is no science to AGW.

And yet you still can't explain what happens to the IR radiation absorbed by CO2. All you can do is parrot trends that may reverse tomorrow. Of course when it does, you'll go back to your "natural fluctuations" dodge and STILL never answer the core question. Of course science doesn't operate on majority opinion, but it does operate on known laws of physics. I'll continue to believe we've had an impact until someone comes up with an explanation for the question I posed. If you can't, I don't really care what you have to say.

 

[percysunshine]

.

The original hockey stick projection of global climate change, made about 25 years ago, had us all dead by now.

I don't know about everyone else, but the climate is pretty much the same as it was then, and I am still alive.

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In the real world most scientists agree that AGW is real. In the right wing echo chamber most scientists have abandoned or criticize AGW. That's because they only listen to the deniers and ignore the majority.

science is not based on a majority but rather on science. AGW may not be an issue at all given the huge mistakes the "scientists" have made. Temperature has gone down for 20 years and hurricane activity has gone down too. Both of these huge mistakes should be enough to convince you that there is no science to AGW.

And yet you still can't explain what happens to the IR radiation absorbed by CO2. All you can do is parrot trends that may reverse tomorrow. Of course when it does, you'll go back to your "natural fluctuations" dodge and STILL never answer the core question. Of course science doesn't operate on majority opinion, but it does operate on known laws of physics. I'll continue to believe we've had an impact until someone comes up with an explanation for the question I posed. If you can't, I don't really care what you have to say.

dear if the say temperature is going down and it goes up when they said "science" said it was impossible you have to be skeptical.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what happens to the IR radiation absorbed by CO2..

the old theory was that it warmed the earth, now we are not sure because in the last 20 years CO2 has gone way up to record levels and temperature has not followed as predicted 1 million time by scientists.

 

[konradv]

what happens to the IR radiation absorbed by CO2..

the old theory was that it warmed the earth, now we are not sure because in the last 20 years CO2 has a gone way up to record levels and temperature has not followed.

If it's no longer warming the earth, what happened to it? You can't just throw up your arms and say, "Oh well". The theory hasn't changed, we're just in one of those natural fluctuations that all the deniers tout when the temps are going up. I don't really care if the temp has gone up at all, if CO2 keeps absorbing IR, it will eventually. We're playing with fire, if we say we'll worry about that when it happens.

 

[percysunshine]

.

Explaining past scientific numerical modeling faux pas is incumbent on any scientist who wishes to be taken seriously in the future. The UN has stumbled on this point.

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

we're just in one of those natural fluctuations.

dear the theory allowed for perhaps a 5 or 10 year fluctuation but not 20 and certainly not reduced ACE ( accumulated cycloninc activity). Half a brain makes anyone a skeptic.

 

[konradv]

we're just in one of those natural fluctuations.

dear the theory allowed for perhaps a 5 or 10 year fluctuation but not 20 and certainly not reduced ACE ( accumulated cycloninc activity). Half a brain makes anyone a skeptic.

The theory doesn't say anything about how long fluctuations should last. It's all about the fact that CO2 absorbs IR and that its concentration has been going up for the last 200+ years. Half a brain should tell you that 20 years is nothing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Half a brain should tell you that 20 years is nothing.

dear, many scientists are very concerned that the 20 years was supposed to be impossible according to the theory as was the decline in ACE.

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

 

[konradv]

You have no proof the warming period has ended. If CO2 is still climbing, it's counter-intuitive. That's like saying your going to be cooler after you throw an extra blanket on your bed.