Global Warming Liars

[Billy_Bob]

From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

...

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]


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]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]
******************************************************

There is a very strong consensus among scientists supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Denial of this fact is simply unsupportable.

Bull Shit! A "general" question does not a consensus make. This is hog wash.

 

[sealybobo]

http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com

THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.

This lie is based on a 2009 article by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, then a student at the University of Illinois.
As stated in the Wall Street Journal, "The '97 percent' figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
The WSJ went on to elaborate further: "The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change."
So much for that lie one hears so often and so loudly.
THE LIE: Humans are causing catastrophic changes in earth's climate by burning fossil fuel and increasing carbon dioxide.
This lie is based on the extremely disingenuous and anti-scientific Keeling Curve, below.

This terribly misleading graph is intended to scare you into immediate action.
Just adding water vapor, which constitutes 1.5% of the atmosphere, or 15,000 parts per million, that graph above becomes this below, far more realistic, more honest, less misleading:


Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are omitted from graphs and discussion.
If in fact humans were the primary, or even major contributor to carbon dioxide production, then the highest concentrations of CO2 would be industrial and population centers around the globe, instead of the rain forests of Africa and South America:

THE LIE: Global catastrophe, "tipping point"! We must do something now!
This incredible lie is preached by Al Gore, the United Nations, bureaucracies beholden to research billions, and by Barack Obama. Obama recently flew on Air Force One from Washington, D.C. to California, to play a round of golf with his friends, the same way he uses Air Force One to fly to Democrat fund-raisers all over the U.S.
Preaching doom and gloom to you little people is what they do, but not what they practice themselves. At the most recent Global Warming Scare-Fest, in Davos, Switzerland, the Scare-Mongers flew 1,700 private jets, rather than videoconference. Don't do as they do, do as they say.
Net global emission of CO2 looks nothing like human production of CO2. Rather, CO2 is the product of temperature and soil moisture.


THE LIE: Big oil billions are driving "deniers"
Budget requests from a few of the U.S. government agencies for global warming "research" money, just in 2011:

NOAA $437 million
NSF $480 million
NASA $438 million
DOE $627 million
DOI $171 million
EPA $169 million
USDA $159 million

ON OCTOBER 6, 2010, UC SANTA BARBARA PHYSICS PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HAROLD LEWIS, RESIGNED FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY IN PROTEST OF THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD. HIS LETTER READS IN PART:“FOR REASONS THAT WILL SOON BECOME CLEAR MY FORMER PRIDE AT BEING AN APS FELLOW ALL THESE YEARS HAS BEEN TURNED INTO SHAME, AND I AM FORCED, WITH NO PLEASURE AT ALL, TO OFFER YOU MY RESIGNATION FROM THE SOCIETY. “IT IS OF COURSE, THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM, WITH THE (LITERALLY) TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS DRIVING IT, THAT HAS CORRUPTED SO MANY SCIENTISTS, AND HAS CARRIED APS BEFORE IT LIKE A ROGUE WAVE. IT IS THE GREATEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC FRAUD I HAVE SEEN IN MY LONG LIFE AS A PHYSICIST. ANYONE WHO HAS THE FAINTEST DOUBT THAT THIS IS SO SHOULD FORCE HIMSELF TO READ THE CLIMATEGATE DOCUMENTS, WHICH LAY IT BARE. (MONTFORD’S BOOK ORGANIZES THE FACTS VERY WELL.) I DON’T BELIEVE THAT ANY REAL PHYSICIST, NAY SCIENTIST, CAN READ THAT STUFF WITHOUT REVULSION. I WOULD ALMOST MAKE THAT REVULSION A DEFINITION OF THE WORD SCIENTIST. “SO WHAT HAS THE APS, AS AN ORGANIZATION, DONE IN THE FACE OF THIS CHALLENGE? IT HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRUPTION AS THE NORM, AND GONE ALONG WITH IT." - END OF QUOTE BY PROFESSOR LEWIS ​

​

NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS, IVER GIAIVER LIKEWISE RESIGNED IN DISGUST FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 OVER THIS ONGOING SCANDAL PARADING AS "SCIENCE". IT IS ANYTHING BUT.​

THE LIE: Why would scientists lie! For money, and for cowardice. They don't want to be blackballed by other cowards.

Since most of our water use is outdoors, watering landscape correctly is one of the easiest and most effective ways to conserve water. If you have grass be sure to water it no more than twice a week, even during the summer.

City of Phoenix Statement on Colorado River Shortage

www.phoenix.gov

Europe’s rivers run dry as scientists warn drought could be worst in 500 years

Crops, power plants, barge traffic, industry and fish populations devastated by parched waterways

www.theguardian.com

 

[Crick]

Bull Shit! A "general" question does not a consensus make. This is hog wash.

Show us where such a restriction on the term is spelled out Billy Boy.

And I am really curious as to why you capitalized "shit".

 

[Crick]

Yes, based on what you posted, that's garbage.

Explain why it would be garbage. Just saying it means nothing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Explain why it would be garbage. Just saying it means nothing.

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.

What a useless point. Do they reject the possibility entirely? Or just the doomsday runaway positive feedback possibilities? Do all of the 13,926 "good" articles think humans are 100% responsible for whatever warming we're currently whining about? 50%? Less?
Do they think that we're responsible and need to spend $76 trillion, or more, to fix it?

How many think it's happening and it's no big deal? Or that it could be fixed by using more nat gas and 200 new nuclear plants?

Without a level of detail that none of your garbage included, your claim of consensus is garbage.

 

[Crick]

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.

What a useless point. Do they reject the possibility entirely? Or just the doomsday runaway positive feedback possibilities? Do all of the 13,926 "good" articles think humans are 100% responsible for whatever warming we're currently whining about? 50%? Less?
Do they think that we're responsible and need to spend $76 trillion, or more, to fix it?

How many think it's happening and it's no big deal? Or that it could be fixed by using more nat gas and 200 new nuclear plants?

Without a level of detail that none of your garbage included, your claim of consensus is garbage.

ibid

Consensus points​

The current scientific consensus is that:

• Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a]
• Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
• Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
• People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[8] Among the most cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[9][10] It is "extremely likely"[11] that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases"[11] in the atmosphere.[12] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[13][14][15][16]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[17] The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was completed in 2014.[18] Its conclusions are summarized below:

• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia."[19]
• "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years."[20]
• Human influence on the climate system is clear.[21] It is extremely likely (95–100% probability)[22] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010.[21]
• "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts."[23]
• "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability."[24]
• "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"[23]
• Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[25]
• The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[26] Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66–100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[27]

The warming influence (called radiative forcing) of long-lived atmospheric greenhouse gases has nearly doubled in 40 years.[28]
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[29][30]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[31] which in 2007[32] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[33] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I could also point out that no matter HOW vaguely it is worded, no consensus exists for the position that you and the other AGW deniers on this forum maintain.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I could also point out that no matter HOW vaguely it is worded, no consensus exists for the position that you and the other AGW deniers on this forum maintain.

My position is that 99% of greens are useless, whiney twats and their ignorance of science is only exceeded by their ignorance of economics.

 

[Crick]

From links in the Wikipedia article which you believe is garbage:

A Simple Pie Chart Shows Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air

I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science...

slate.com

Why Don’t Climate Change Deniers Publish Papers?

To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely...

slate.com

And here is the link to Powell's study.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958. Unfortunately, this is a pay site. However, here is the abstract and a list of references

Abstract​

The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. 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.

References​

	Anderegg, W., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 12107-12109. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
	Atkin, E. (2015). Ted Cruz challenged science at his climate change hearing: Science won. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/10/3729732/ted-cruz-and-science-have-a-rocky-relationship/ Google Scholar
	Avakyan, S. V. (2013a). Problems of climate as a problem of optics. Journal of Optical Technology, 80, 717-721. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Avakyan, S. V. (2013b). The role of solar activity in global warming. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 83, 275-285. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., . . . Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Doran, P. T., Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22-23. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Gervais, F. (2014). Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 28, 1450095. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Happer, W. (2014). Why has global warming paused? International Journal of Modern Physics A, 29, 1460003. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Hug, H. (2013). “The Climate Models are inadequate”: Heinz Hug queries the significance of CO2 for climate change. Nachrichten Aus Der Chemie, 61, 132. Google Scholar
	Kolbert, E. (2007). Field notes from a catastrophe: Man, nature, and climate change. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar
	Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
	Obama, B. (2013). Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Retrieved from Google Scholar
	Oreskes, N. (1999). The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American earth science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Pew Research Center . (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society Google Scholar
	Powell, J. L. (2015). Four revolutions in the earth sciences: From heresy to truth. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
	Weart, S. R. (2008). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref

 

[Crick]

My position is that 99% of greens are useless, whiney twats and their ignorance of science is only exceeded by their ignorance of economics.

You have not demonstrated any significant knowledge of science Todd. Your concern has almost always centered on the costs of dealing with the problem. What is your educational background?

And, there is the point that virtually EVERY scientist on the planet accepts AGW. Are they ignorant, whiney twats?

 

[Crick]

That's a mistake you and other deniers frequently make here. Greens didn't discover global warming and its human causation. Scientists did. Greens just believe them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From links in the Wikipedia article which you believe is garbage:

A Simple Pie Chart Shows Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air

I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science...

slate.com

Why Don’t Climate Change Deniers Publish Papers?

To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely...

slate.com

And here is the link to Powell's study.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958. Unfortunately, this is a pay site. However, here is the abstract and a list of references

Abstract​

The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. 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.

References​

	Anderegg, W., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 12107-12109. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
	Atkin, E. (2015). Ted Cruz challenged science at his climate change hearing: Science won. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/10/3729732/ted-cruz-and-science-have-a-rocky-relationship/ Google Scholar
	Avakyan, S. V. (2013a). Problems of climate as a problem of optics. Journal of Optical Technology, 80, 717-721. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Avakyan, S. V. (2013b). The role of solar activity in global warming. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 83, 275-285. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., . . . Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Doran, P. T., Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22-23. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Gervais, F. (2014). Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 28, 1450095. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Happer, W. (2014). Why has global warming paused? International Journal of Modern Physics A, 29, 1460003. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Hug, H. (2013). “The Climate Models are inadequate”: Heinz Hug queries the significance of CO2 for climate change. Nachrichten Aus Der Chemie, 61, 132. Google Scholar
	Kolbert, E. (2007). Field notes from a catastrophe: Man, nature, and climate change. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar
	Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
	Obama, B. (2013). Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Retrieved from Google Scholar
	Oreskes, N. (1999). The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American earth science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Pew Research Center . (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society Google Scholar
	Powell, J. L. (2015). Four revolutions in the earth sciences: From heresy to truth. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
	Weart, S. R. (2008). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref

Anything in those links about not publishing because the warmers are scheming to prevent them?
I mean that's what I'd do if I had all the science on my side.........

The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.

Obviously.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have not demonstrated any significant knowledge of science Todd. Your concern has almost always centered on the costs of dealing with the problem. What is your educational background?

And, there is the point that virtually EVERY scientist on the planet accepts AGW. Are they ignorant, whiney twats?

You have not demonstrated any significant knowledge of science Todd.

Why do I need any? Everything I know I learned from Michael Mann.

Your concern has almost always centered on the costs of dealing with the problem.

I know. Liberals are really bad at economics, but they're Milton Friedman compared to the greens.

And, there is the point that virtually EVERY scientist on the planet accepts AGW.

Of course they do, because there is no downside to expressing any doubt. None at all.

Are they ignorant, whiney twats?

No. But 99% of the greens are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a mistake you and other deniers frequently make here. Greens didn't discover global warming and its human causation. Scientists did. Greens just believe them.

Nope, but the greens are the twats coming up with all the really stupid "solutions".

How many Germans are going to freeze to death this winter because of the greens?

 

[Crick]

Nope, but the greens are the twats coming up with all the really stupid "solutions".

How many Germans are going to freeze to death this winter because of the greens?

Here are the people coming up with "solutions": Working Group III — IPCC.

And Todd, what are YOUR people like? Are they scientists? Are they economists? Are they coming up with effective, workable solutions? I think you would have to agree the answers are "no", "no" and "no".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here are the people coming up with "solutions": Working Group III — IPCC.

And Todd, what are YOUR people like? Are they scientists? Are they economists? Are they coming up with effective, workable solutions? I think you would have to agree the answers are "no", "no" and "no".

They sound swell.

How much taxpayer money are they looking to spend?

And Todd, what are YOUR people like?

My people are even less patient with whiney green twatness than I am.

Are they scientists? Are they economists?

Are they AOC?

 

[Crick]

They sound swell.

How much taxpayer money are they looking to spend?

And Todd, what are YOUR people like?

My people are even less patient with whiney green twatness than I am.

Are they scientists? Are they economists?

Are they AOC?

Why do you seem to think that they're primary goal is spending money? And you've heard many times how much more it will cost to do nothing than it will to address the problem head on. To my knowledge, you've never responded to that point.

And why do you fail to answer my simple question? You had no problem characterizing the people on my side of the argument but when asked about yours, you dodge and evade. Why would that be Todd? I mean, besides the fact that EXTREMELY few people on your side of the argument have even a basic education in science. And since it seems to be your specialty, you can address the quality of their economics. Given that you want to put off dealing with a catastrophic problem as long as possible, I can't say much for the quality of your basic economic knowledge but we can save that for another day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you seem to think that they're primary goal is spending money? And you've heard many times how much more it will cost to do nothing than it will to address the problem head on. To my knowledge, you've never responded to that point.

And why do you fail to answer my simple question? You had no problem characterizing the people on my side of the argument but when asked about yours, you dodge and evade. Why would that be Todd? I mean, besides the fact that EXTREMELY few people on your side of the argument have even a basic education in science. And since it seems to be your specialty, you can address the quality of their economics. Given that you want to put off dealing with a catastrophic problem as long as possible, I can't say much for the quality of your basic economic knowledge but we can save that for another day.

Why do you seem to think that they're primary goal is spending money?

You don't think it is? Aren't you cute.

And you've heard many times how much more it will cost to do nothing than it will to address the problem head on.

Yes, I mock those claims all the time.

And why do you fail to answer my simple question? You had no problem characterizing the people on my side of the argument but when asked about yours, you dodge and evade.

Yes, I'm chacterizing the shit out of the green morons.
I don't need to defend anyone on my side, I'm making my own arguments.
You want to attack someone else on USMB for mocking your side, feel free.

Why would that be Todd? I mean, besides the fact that EXTREMELY few people on your side of the argument have even a basic education in science.

It's true, none of them are Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann.

And since it seems to be your specialty, you can address the quality of their economics.

Green economics is even worse than green science.

Given that you want to put off dealing with a catastrophic problem as long as possible

Catastrophic? Please. If we spend $10 trillion on "green" fixes over the next 20 years, how much cooler will it be in 2100?

If we waste trillions to cut 2.2 gigatons of CO2 (about 50% of our emissions) and China adds another 4 gigatons, have we made a wise investment or a stupid one? How much should we harm our GDP by installing more expensive, less reliable power sources? Will a smaller GDP make us more or less able to respond to a future "catastrophe"?

 

[Crick]

Why do you seem to think that they're primary goal is spending money?

You don't think it is? Aren't you cute.

So, you don't have an answer.

And you've heard many times how much more it will cost to do nothing than it will to address the problem head on.

Yes, I mock those claims all the time.

So, you don't have evidence to refute such claims.

And why do you fail to answer my simple question? You had no problem characterizing the people on my side of the argument but when asked about yours, you dodge and evade.

Yes, I'm chacterizing the shit out of the green morons.
I don't need to defend anyone on my side, I'm making my own arguments.
You want to attack someone else on USMB for mocking your side, feel free.

So, you are afraid to discuss the average qualification of people on your side of the argument while characterizing several thousand published PhD scientists as "green morons".

Why would that be Todd? I mean, besides the fact that EXTREMELY few people on your side of the argument have even a basic education in science.

It's true, none of them are Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann.

Almost none of them are Joe STEM-Degree Todd. Why doesn't that bother you? Doesn't it strike you as a potential mistake to throw yourself in with the demonstrably more ignorant side of a technical argument?

And since it seems to be your specialty, you can address the quality of their economics.

Green economics is even worse than green science.

Why and why should I take your word for it?

Given that you want to put off dealing with a catastrophic problem as long as possible

Catastrophic? Please. If we spend $10 trillion on "green" fixes over the next 20 years, how much cooler will it be in 2100?

If we waste trillions to cut 2.2 gigatons of CO2 (about 50% of our emissions) and China adds another 4 gigatons, have we made a wise investment or a stupid one? How much should we harm our GDP by installing more expensive, less reliable power sources? Will a smaller GDP make us more or less able to respond to a future "catastrophe"?

You're making a circular argument here Todd. Money spent to cut CO2 emissions is not wasted. This is not an investment to make us rich, it is an investment to keep us from the fucking abyss.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, you don't have an answer.



So, you don't have evidence to refute such claims.



So, you are afraid to discuss the average qualification of people on your side of the argument while characterizing several thousand published PhD scientists as "green morons".



Almost none of them are Joe STEM-Degree Todd. Why doesn't that bother you? Doesn't it strike you as a potential mistake to throw yourself in with the demonstrably more ignorant side of a technical argument?



Why and why should I take your word for it?



You're making a circular argument here Todd. Money spent to cut CO2 emissions is not wasted. This is not an investment to make us rich, it is an investment to keep us from the fucking abyss.

So, you don't have an answer.

My answer is, yes, all they're interested in is spending taxpayer money or imposing mandates which is forced spending funded by someone else.

So, you don't have evidence to refute such claims.

The evidence to refute claims of future economic harm if we don't "fix things"? LOL!

So, you are afraid to discuss the average qualification of people on your side of the argument

I don't give a shit about average qualifications on my side.
Your side wants to spend tens of trillions of dollars, your argument needs to be better than some people on my side are unqualified.

Almost none of them are Joe STEM-Degree Todd

Not like Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann? LOL!

Doesn't it strike you as a potential mistake to throw yourself in with the demonstrably more ignorant side of a technical argument?

Idiots who don't want to waste tens of trillons versus idiots who do? Yeah, that's a tough one.

Why and why should I take your word for it?

Don't. I'm sure AOC's GND made a lot of economic sense to you.

Money spent to cut CO2 emissions is not wasted.

How much will Biden's green investments in his recent pork-barrel bill cut CO2 by 2100?

This is not an investment to make us rich,

Finally, you say something I can agree with.

it is an investment to keep us from the fucking abyss.

Only if trillions wasted to reduce temps by 0.1 degrees is the difference between safety and the abyss.

 

[Crick]

What's been a waste is this thread and trying to talk with you Todd.