Has the United States surrendered to anthropogenic climate change?

[HikerGuy83]

97% of scientists say........

Here is an article that says 97% is wrong......

It shows the break down.

It's still above 50% (like 75 to 80%).

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

www.forbes.com

This one is not bad.....it does not refute the number as much as it tries to say that it lacks context.

The Bogus “Consensus” Argument on Climate Change

One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Looks who's still posting the bs.

Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the

science.nasa.gov

 

[HikerGuy83]

I recognize that my respecting science induces hysteria and angry name-calling among the dogmatists who don't.

And we see that you won't produce the studies you hide behind. You can only produce posts with non scientific pronouncements that demonstrate you (1) don't understand science, math, or statistics (2) don't care for anyone who does not think (and I use that word loosely) like you.

Every scientific discipline is inherently self-correcting, based upon empirical data, always subject to revision.

And the sun rises in the east.

Your point ?

In climatology, a global consensus has been reached, but remains subject to revision as well as refinement as the reality of anthropogenic climate change is continually being confirmed.

No it has not....unless you can clearly state what they agree on.

That temperatures are going up....most do.

Is it is a problem. Your numbers drop.

Unlike science, dogma is impervious to data, anathema to revision, immune to reason.

Your lack of actual studies is showing just how true that statement is.

The crackpot notion of a vast clandestine, sinister, conspiracy by all the world's climatologists, as well as the nutty proposition that cult leaders and media entertainers know more about climatology than climatologists, strikes me as absurd,

Then keep not posting studies.

The crackpots you accuse are just as credible as you since you lack anything but 97%.....and I just showed that number is bogus.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I don't need to cite the overwhelming amount of corroborative empirical data that results in the global scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic climate change.

Because you can't defend it.

It's more like an article of faith to you.

More than likely, you don't understand what is being published anyway.

 

[multivita-man]

No way to adapt to temperatures beyond human tolerances.....

What a great article......

His background is in mathematics and computer science, and he's in the insurance field. His point is that much of the modern economy is going to be uninsurable. Modern markets will collapse in that scenario.

 

[justoffal]

I recognize that my respecting science induces hysteria and angry name-calling among the dogmatists who don't.

Every scientific discipline is inherently self-correcting, based upon empirical data, always subject to revision.

In climatology, a global consensus has been reached, but remains subject to revision as well as refinement as the reality of anthropogenic climate change is continually being confirmed.

Unlike science, dogma is impervious to data, anathema to revision, immune to reason.

The crackpot notion of a vast clandestine, sinister, conspiracy by all the world's climatologists, as well as the nutty proposition that cult leaders and media entertainers know more about climatology than climatologists, strikes me as absurd,

Copernicus faced A global consensus too.
He was forced into hiding for insisting that the sun was the center of the solar system.

 

[schmidlap]

The reality:

Since the pre-industrial period, human activities are estimated to have increased Earth’s global average temperature by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), a number that is currently increasing by more than 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade. The current warming trend is unequivocally the result of human activity since the 1950s and is proceeding at an unprecedented rate over millennia.​

 

[schmidlap]

Copernicus faced A global consensus too.
He was forced into hiding for insisting that the sun was the center of the solar system.

Science dispelled the heliocentric view of the cosmos that had long been mandated dogma, that some still clung to, irrationally.

 

[westwall]

HikerGuy83

The reality:

Since the pre-industrial period, human activities are estimated to have increased Earth’s global average temperature by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), a number that is currently increasing by more than 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade. The current warming trend is unequivocally the result of human activity since the 1950s and is proceeding at an unprecedented rate over millennia.​

"Estimated" but can't point to a single empirical data point to support their claim.

DURRRRRR

 

[ReinyDays]

The reality:

Since the pre-industrial period, human activities are estimated to have increased Earth’s global average temperature by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), a number that is currently increasing by more than 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade. The current warming trend is unequivocally the result of human activity since the 1950s and is proceeding at an unprecedented rate over millennia.​

That's a trivial increase ... temperature can be 1ºC different just a mile away ... or an hour ago ...

 

[schmidlap]

Because you can't defend it.

It's more like an article of faith to you.

More than likely, you don't understand what is being published anyway.

I don't need to defend the expert consensus in any scientific discipline.

Dogmatists would persist in denying the science, anyway.

 

[westwall]

I don't need to defend the expert consensus in any scientific discipline.

Dogmatists would persist in denying the science, anyway.

THEY need to provide support for their claims.

To date they have failed.

 

[schmidlap]

HikerGuy83

"Estimated" but can't point to a single empirical data point to support their claim.

DURRRRRR

The paranoid delusion that one knows more about any scientific discipline than the consensus of experts in that field, or that they are all complicit in a cast conspiracy, is impervious to reason.

 

[westwall]

The paranoid delusion that one knows more about any scientific discipline than the consensus of experts in that field, or that they are all complicit in a cast conspiracy, is impervious to reason.

The incessant logic failures of the anti science religious nutjobs, and their attempt to censor information that proves their lies to be lies, are a wonderful confirmation that you religious freaks have lost.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

In the near future I will probably by an electric car just to drive back and forth to work and likely install solar panels on one of my camper trailers so I can go off grid. But I will not be unconstitutionally forced to buy these things.

 

[ReinyDays]

In the near future I will probably by an electric car just to drive back and forth to work and likely install solar panels on one of my camper trailers so I can go off grid. But I will not be unconstitutionally forced to buy these things.

I agree ... the EV for work ... the F-350 for play ... that's being responsible ... saves money too !!! ...

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I agree ... the EV for work ... the F-350 for play ... that's being responsible ... saves money too !!! ...

I got a Jeep JK I'm going to do a V-8 swap on and likely buy a F-250 next year. I'm kicking myself in the ass for getting rid of my 92 F-150 with the 351.

 

[schmidlap]

The dogma of both a geocentric and heliocentric universe were disproved by astronomical science.

Some still prefer dogma.

 

[westwall]

The dogma of both a geocentric and heliocentric universe were disproved by astronomical science.

Some still prefer dogma.

Screeches the pusher of dogma over science.

You're too funny. Are you that dishonest, or just plain old stupid?

 

[schmidlap]

Screeches the pusher of dogma over science.

You're too funny. Are you that dishonest, or just plain old stupid?

As I noted, science, unlike your dogma, is self-critical and revisable.

Your pretense that the world's climatologists - who have reached a consensus regarding the empirical data they have compiled and analyzed - are all dogmatists (or are all complicit in some mysterious sinister conspiracy) makes no sense,

 

[westwall]

As I noted, science, unlike your dogma, is self-critical and revisable.

Your pretense that the world's climatologists - who have reached a consensus regarding the empirical data they have compiled and analyzed - are all dogmatists makes no sense,

You present no science, fool. You present opinion, based on computer derived fiction.

You aren't smart enough to understand science.