How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[abu afak]

There are also a ton of smart people that think the science isn't settled.

You missed my long running thread?
I've covered all the Pillars of the issue with them.
I don't dodge you, YOU dodge me junior.
Ran for TWO YEARS until This july..

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing ​

(The AGW Consensus)​

​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..​

​

Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#Opposing Opposing (The AGW Consensus) Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of...

www.usmessageboard.com

and continue reading Link for Surveys of scientists and their papers/opinions.
Overwhelming.
And the more specialist they are/the more convinced.

`

 

[Paracetamol63]

There are also a ton of smart people that think the science isn't settled.

But it's not even close to the same number as think it is real. Do you have a solid number somewhere?

There are a lot of folks who AREN'T scientists who question it, but among the professional climate-related earth scientists the number is actually pretty small.

 

[BackAgain]

Hmm. There are still people out there who think the earth is flat.

Irrelevant to this discussion, of course.

If one asked them they'd make the same claims about earth sphericity.

So what? Those folks know less about science than you do. That’s all.

There are always "skeptics" but just because some question something, does not make it less likely. Questions always exist.

Thanks Captain obvious. Now try to learn. The fact that there are always skeptics doesn’t mean that the skeptics are always necessarily wrong.

Right now there's a TON of smart people out there who think that science is pretty settled.

They have the right to think so. Neither their numbers nor their mass has any bearing whatsoever on the question of whether their belief is merited or mistaken.

I'm not really in a position to question them (that would assume I understood it better than they do) and from what I can tell the number of PROFESSIONALS who question the science is really pretty small.

Your understanding is undermined by the fact that the numbers trotted out are themselves fictional.

Right now the best bet looks like following the mainstream science.

Actually, the best bet is to have actual scientists using actual scientific procedure to see whether or not the “mainstream science,” on this topic, is scientifically valid.

 

[Paracetamol63]

Irrelevant to this discussion, of course.

So what? Those folks know less about science than you do. That’s all.

But you see the point, right? There are always "skeptics" about ANY scientific claim, no matter how well established the science is.

Thanks Captain obvious. Now try to learn. The fact that there are always skeptics doesn’t mean that the skeptics are always necessarily wrong.

But the presence of skeptics does not mean the science isn't settled.

Your understanding is undermined by the fact that the numbers trotted out are themselves fictional.

How do you know they are fictional?

Actually, the best bet is to have actual scientists using actual scientific procedure to see whether or not the “mainstream science,” on this topic, is scientifically valid.

They are using proper scientific procedure. Which part are they "missing"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know. All I know is he doesn't pay an electric bill (He may pay a small surcharge every month for grid upkeep). He's also not on batteries but uses net metering.

Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds

e360.yale.edu

Pick your favorite "subsidy" from your link and cut and paste it in the thread.

 

[Meister]

But it's not even close to the same number as think it is real. Do you have a solid number somewhere?

There are a lot of folks who AREN'T scientists who question it, but among the professional climate-related earth scientists the number is actually pretty small.

I've always said to just follow the money. I'm sticking to that.
We have had heating and cooling cycles long before Man had any kind of industrial impact.
We have had 6(?) or more ice ages. We really don't have a clue on the impact of our CO2 footprint.
The models created rarely if ever prove anything.

Follow the money

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry. Just telling you what the world says about oil company subsidies.

That study isn't "the world".

 

[Paracetamol63]

Pick your favorite "subsidy" from your link and cut and paste it in the thread.

Not an economist. Just telling you what the world says about oil company subsidies. Whether you like the word or not.

 

[Paracetamol63]

I've always said to just follow the money. I'm sticking to that.
We have had heating and cooling cycles long before Man had any kind of industrial impact.
We have had 6(?) or more ice ages. We really don't have a clue on the impact of our CO2 footprint.
The models created rarely if ever prove anything.

Follow the money

Guess it's better than following the science which actually seems pretty clear.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not an economist. Just telling you what the world says about oil company subsidies. Whether you like the word or not.

Pick your favorite "subsidy" from your link and cut and paste it in the thread.

 

[Paracetamol63]

That study isn't "the world".

If you google you will find MANY MANY MANY sources (many of them actual ECONOMISTS) calling what the oil companies get "subsidies".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Guess it's better than following the science which actually seems pretty clear.

How much money does the science say we should spend on windmills?

 

[jc456]

Why do you think they have all those lobbyists. They're getting away with murder.

Who they killing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you google you will find MANY MANY MANY sources (many of them actual ECONOMISTS) calling what the oil companies get "subsidies".

There are a lot of idiots out there. If you want to discuss specifics, post them.

If you are afraid to post specifics, just say so.

 

[Meister]

You missed my long running thread?
I've covered all the Pillars of the issue with them.
I don't dodge you, YOU dodge me junior.
Ran for TWO YEARS until This july..

Opposing ​

(The AGW Consensus)​

​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..​

​

Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#Opposing Opposing (The AGW Consensus) Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of...

www.usmessageboard.com

and continue reading Link for Surveys of scientists and their papers/opinions.
Overwhelming.
And the more specialist they are/the more convinced.

`

For the most part, I ignore you. Then every few weeks you just blast disapprove emojis.
But I do thank you for my sig line.
I stand on what I post, with or without your "long running thread".

 

[jc456]

$0 vs $115. The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.

You pay $115 a month and he pays zero?
What was the total cost of his system? Batteries?

I agree, but others tell me that it isn't. Especially when you tell them that OIL COMPANIES get subsidies.

Oil subsidy? Anything specific?

You pay $115 a month and he pays zero?
What was the total cost of his system? Batteries

They were obviously free!

 

[Paracetamol63]

There are a lot of idiots out there. If you want to discuss specifics, post them.

If you are afraid to post specifics, just say so.

I don't believe I need to.

 

[Meister]

Guess it's better than following the science which actually seems pretty clear.

I'm not trying to change your mind, and you won't change mine.
But, the Climate cooling/warming scam is pretty clear.
Follow the money to globalization.

 

[jc456]

Right now there's a TON of smart people out there who think that science is pretty settled. I'm not really in a position to question them (that would assume I understood it better than they do) and from what I can tell the number of PROFESSIONALS who question the science is really pretty small.

So, there are no smart people with a different opinion?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total.

Thanks.
That was even funnier.

You're welcome. --I provide. You consume and disparage. Adult vs. Child. Such is life.-- Implicit subsidies accounting for the rest, obviously. But let's look a tad closer at the math, shall we.. 8% of "$5.9 Trillion in Subsidies" =..
$472 Billion. Wow, that's a lot of direct subsiding for an industry reporting record profits! You're supposedly here for the little guy? Why are we subsidizing record profits again?

Math is hard for some people.

The International Renewable Energy Agency tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around 70% were fossil fuel subsidies. About 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a high cost. Subsidies have sizable fiscal costs (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inefficient allocation of an economy’s resources (hindering growth), encourage pollution...

www.imf.org