Is Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Global Warming/AGW Falsifiable?

[jc456]

I am very late to this party--in fact everybody has probably gone home and the lights are turned off--but I noted this response, and had to suggest the obvious alternate question:

What if we ban all petroleum products--there are thousands and thousands of them--
wreck our economy
escalate the misery index to levels not seen since the Great Depression
throw billions into poverty
get rid of all farm animals and everybody goes vegan severely limit our liberties, choices, options, opportunities pretty much eliminate human generated CO2 and. . .

. . . CO2 levels continue to rise pretty much at the same level they have been rising? Most especially if our climate is not substantially different than it is now?

What then?

You need to understand, demofks don’t like humans

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am very late to this party--in fact everybody has probably gone home and the lights are turned off--but I noted this response, and had to suggest the obvious alternate question:

What if we ban all petroleum products--there are thousands and thousands of them--
wreck our economy. . .
escalate the misery index to levels not seen since the Great Depression. . .
throw billions into poverty. . .
get rid of all farm animals and everybody goes vegan. . .
severely limit our liberties, choices, options, opportunities. . . pretty much eliminate human generated CO2 and. . .

. . . CO2 levels continue to rise pretty much at the same level they have been rising? Most especially if our climate is not substantially different than it is now?

What then?

The greens need to cook and heat with only green sources.
Wood and dung.
And they need to tell all the poor countries to do the same.

 

[Foxfyre]

The greens need to cook and heat with only green sources.
Wood and dung.
And they need to tell all the poor countries to do the same.

The greens need to cook and heat with only green sources.
Wood and dung.
And they need to tell all the poor countries to do the same.

The greens have no intention of making themselves particularly uncomfortable. They are just, perhaps without intending to, demanding it of everybody else.

The OP rated the post you quoted as 'fake news.' New flash: it wasn't news at all. It was asking a question.

If we spend all those trillions Biden intends to spend on green projects, if he accomplishes shutting down the fossil fuel industries, if all the draconian policies are put into effect and it makes no difference, what do we do then? All the experts I have read say it will profoundly change the quality of life and not in a good way.

But one thing greens are not is intellectually honest. They don't want to deal with inconvenient facts or uncomfortable questions.

But since so far all the billions of dollars and resources going into green energy has made no measurable difference in the CO2 levels, we have no scientific data that gives us any assurance that even busting ourselves back to the 18th Century technology and lifestyle will have any measurable effect on CO2 levels.

But the greens sure don't want to even think about that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also it would seem that there would be at least some curiosity and reasonable questions asked even by the strongest climate change religionists.

The USA, Canada, all of Europe represent quite a bit of the world's industrial base and all have gone green, green, green. Even China is the world's largest purchaser and user of electric cars surpassing all of Europe combined and has more wind turbines and solar panels than any other country.

Now if it is human activity that caused the most recent large uptick in CO2 in the atmosphere, why is that happening when there is more effort to do things the 'green' way than ever before in history? Why is it that the more money, resources, and policy we pour into green energy, the higher the CO2 goes?

Why wouldn't everybody want an answer to that question?

 

[Dagosa]

Liar.

But other than that, **** off

,

:

;

Do you have fun playing the part of a jerk off ?

 

[EMH]

Also it would seem that there would be at least some curiosity and reasonable questions asked even by the strongest climate change religionists.

The USA, Canada, all of Europe represent quite a bit of the world's industrial base and all have gone green, green, green. Even China is the world's largest purchaser and user of electric cars surpassing all of Europe combined and has more wind turbines and solar panels than any other country.

Now if it is human activity that caused the most recent large uptick in CO2 in the atmosphere, why is that happening when there is more effort to do things the 'green' way than ever before in history? Why is it that the more money, resources, and policy we pour into green energy, the higher the CO2 goes?

Why wouldn't everybody want an answer to that question?

Because increasing atmospheric Co2 does not warm the atmosphere.

Sincerely,

highly correlated satellite and balloon data

 

[Foxfyre]

Because increasing atmospheric Co2 does not warm the atmosphere.

Sincerely,

highly correlated satellite and balloon data

I don't have the scientific training to know that for sure one way or another.

But I have seen too many conflicting opinions on the role of CO2 in the atmosphere re global warming/climate change to believe that the government is justified in forcing draconian measure upon us to combat it. Most especially when all the evidence suggests it isn't making any difference whatsoever. There is no reason to believe continuing in this destructive path will make any difference whatsoever or enough difference to justify it.

And pretty much no scientists whose funding/livelihood does not depend on them endorsing AGW caused climate change are justifying it.

 

[EMH]

I don't have the scientific training to know that for sure one way or another.

But I have seen too many conflicting opinions on the role of CO2 in the atmosphere re global warming/climate change to believe that the government is justified in forcing draconian measure upon us to combat it when all the evidence suggests it isn't making any difference whatsoever. There is no reason to believe continuing in this destructive path with make any difference whatsoever or enough difference to justify it.

One more time...

We have TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temps = satellites and balloons

Both showed NO WARMING despite rising Co2, and then the MOST CONFLICTED FUDGE JOB IN SCIENCE HISTORY happened in 2005

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.




Gotta love NBC's "suggested" there. Your outside thermometer "suggested" it was 70F, but what you really need is a conflicted politicized taxpayer funded "scientist" to "correct" that to 80F to fit a narrative and justify continuing to fund the conflicted "scientist"




What were the fudge issues


Orbit wobble = laughable, IR readings wouldn't change at all

shade issue = would possibly justify a one time CONSTANT change but not a change from no warming to warming or cooling because the shade issue was CONSTANT the whole time


FRAUD



REAL SCIENCE = THEORY REJECTED = increasing atmospheric Co2 does NOT cause "warming" AT ALL


Terminate all Co2 fraud funding

 

[Crick]

I don't have the scientific training to know that for sure one way or another.

You don't need much scientific training to realize that EMH has none.

But I have seen too many conflicting opinions on the role of CO2 in the atmosphere re global warming/climate change

You have seen NO conflicting opinions on that topic from actual scientists. None.

to believe that the government is justified in forcing draconian measure upon us to combat it when all the evidence suggests it isn't making any difference whatsoever.

First you say you've seen conflicting opinions (which you have not) and then claim that "all the evidence" suggests nothing is happening.

There is no reason to believe continuing in this destructive path with make any difference whatsoever or enough difference to justify it.

Astounding how you can come to such absolute conclusions when you begin your statement with disclaimers of your ignorance and a lack of certitude in the data. It makes the reader think that, with no evidence, logic or reason, you had made up your mind long before you ever started looking.

 

[Foxfyre]

One more time...

We have TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temps = satellites and balloons

Both showed NO WARMING despite rising Co2, and then the MOST CONFLICTED FUDGE JOB IN SCIENCE HISTORY happened in 2005

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.




Gotta love NBC's "suggested" there. Your outside thermometer "suggested" it was 70F, but what you really need is a conflicted politicized taxpayer funded "scientist" to "correct" that to 80F to fit a narrative and justify continuing to fund the conflicted "scientist"




What were the fudge issues


Orbit wobble = laughable, IR readings wouldn't change at all

shade issue = would possibly justify a one time CONSTANT change but not a change from no warming to warming or cooling because the shade issue was CONSTANT the whole time


FRAUD



REAL SCIENCE = THEORY REJECTED = increasing atmospheric Co2 does NOT cause "warming" AT ALL


Terminate all Co2 fraud funding

Again I do not have the scientific knowledge or resources to do the research myself so, like everybody else, I only have what I see on television, read in the newspapers so to speak, see on social media to go by.

But I can see that pretty much ONLY scientists and or media reporting it whose funding or livelihood depends on supporting AGW driven climate change are pushing the concept. And they do not push it as scientists for whom certainty is a very big word but as politicians with an agenda.

I have seen multiple reports in which scientific data was manipulated, misrepresented, omitted to be sure the conclusions would be AGW caused climate change.

I have seen case after case where those challenging the AGW climate change doctrine have been fired, silenced, attacked which removes the whole thing from science and puts it squarely into the realm of religion/ideology/political agenda.

And all that contributes strongly to justification for reasonable doubt.

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't need much scientific training to realize that EMH has none.

You have seen NO conflicting opinions on that topic from actual scientists. None.

First you say you've seen conflicting opinions (which you have not) and then claim that "all the evidence" suggests nothing is happening.

Astounding how you can come to such absolute conclusions when you begin your statement with disclaimers of your ignorance and a lack of certitude in the data. It makes the reader think that, with no evidence, logic or reason, you had made up your mind long before you ever started looking.

Since you don't know me, don't know what I know or have read, don't know who I know/have talked to, and you have largely misrepresented/distorted what I have said here, I'll just pat you on the head and wish you a nice day and move on. Okay?

 

[Crick]

Since you don't know me, don't know what I know or have read, don't know who I know/have talked to, and you have largely misrepresented/distorted what I have said here, I'll just pat you on the head and wish you a nice day and move on. Okay?

Since you don't know me, don't know what I know or have read, don't know who I know/have talked to, and you have largely misrepresented/distorted what I have said here, I'll just pat you on the head and wish you a nice day and move on. Okay?

Why don't you show us some of the evidence on which you've based your conclusions? This is, after all, a discussion board. I can show you some of the evidence on which I've based mine. It's called "The Physical Science Basis" and can be found neatly laid out at AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

 

[Foxfyre]

Why don't you show us some of the evidence on which you've based your conclusions? This is, after all, a discussion board. I can show you some of the evidence on which I've based mine. It's called "The Physical Science Basis" and can be found neatly laid out at AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

The IPCC is politically motivated.

Why don't you show us some of the evidence on which you've based your conclusions? This is, after all, a discussion board. I can show you some of the evidence on which I've based mine. It's called "The Physical Science Basis" and can be found neatly laid out at AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

If you want to use the IPCC that has produced volumes of reports, please cite the specific areas that are of interest to you. (I have read many of them.) I also know that nobody works for the IPCC unless they first affirm they believe in AGW climate change as a serious threat. And the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is not written by scientists but rather those committed to AGW Climate Change government mandates and is not released for public review without government approval.

Google that also receives a substantial amount of its funding from the government and is infused with far leftists severely limits what you can see on the internet on this subject. If it contradicts the political position, you likely won't be able to find it.

 

[BackAgain]

Do you have fun playing the part of a jerk off ?

I wouldn’t steal a part you were born for.

 

[EMH]

Again I do not have the scientific knowledge or resources to do the research myself so, like everybody else, I only have what I see on television, read in the newspapers so to speak, see on social media to go by.

But I can see that pretty much ONLY scientists and or media reporting it whose funding or livelihood depends on supporting AGW driven climate change are pushing the concept. And they do not push it as scientists for whom certainty is a very big word but as politicians with an agenda.

I have seen multiple reports in which scientific data was manipulated, misrepresented, omitted to be sure the conclusions would be AGW caused climate change.

I have seen case after case where those challenging the AGW climate change doctrine have been fired, silenced, attacked which removes the whole thing from science and puts it squarely into the realm of religion/ideology/political agenda.

And all that contributes strongly to justification for reasonable doubt.

Then there is what really causes Earth's climate change, the position of land near the poles, and land moves...

Earth Ice

90% on Antarctica
7% on Greenland


If Earth had two polar oceans, it would have no ice...

 

[Crick]

Why don't you show us some of the evidence on which you've based your conclusions? This is, after all, a discussion board. I can show you some of the evidence on which I've based mine. It's called "The Physical Science Basis" and can be found neatly laid out at AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

You've ignored this request. You and I know its because you have no evidence supporting your contentions because they're pure bullshit. I'd like you to admit that.

The IPCC is politically motivated.

The IPCC was created by the UN with a charter to assess scientific studies regarding anthropogenic global warming. If you believe that is a political goal, that's your misonception.

If you want to use the IPCC that has produced volumes of reports, please cite the specific areas that are of interest to you. (I have read many of them.)

I gave you a link to the specific report I believe contains more than enough evidence to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming: The Physical Science Basis from AR6. You've given us nothing.

I also know that nobody works for the IPCC unless they first affirm they believe in AGW climate change as a serious threat.

That is demonstrably false. Your side has identified a number of scientists who resigned from the IPCC because they disagreed. They weren't fired.

And the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is not written by scientists but rather those committed to AGW Climate Change government mandates and is not released for public review without government approval.

I would hope that a summary for government policy makers would have some input from people with experience in governance. But if you think it is NOT based on science, I'd like to hear what points you believe diverge. In the meanwhile, we can have a look at the bona fides of the people that actually wrote the SPM and see where their expertise lies. I tried including this but the post got bigger than USMB wanted. Go to IPCC Authors (beta) under the Summary for Policy Makers in "The Physical Science Basis" from Working Group I.

Google that also receives a substantial amount of its funding from the government and is infused with far leftists severely limits what you can see on the internet on this subject. If it contradicts the political position, you likely won't be able to find it.

Really? Do a search on "Man-made global warming is a fraud and a hoax".

About 52,200,000 results (0.47 seconds)

Looks like you can find lots of them.

 

[EMH]

The IPCC was created by the UN with a charter to assess scientific studies regarding anthropogenic global warming. If you believe that is a political goal, that's your misonception.

What is the annual (actually DAILY) budget of the IPCC?

https://apps.ipcc.ch/eventmanager/documents/71/151020210812-Doc.%202%20-%20IPCC%20Programme%20and%20Budget.pdf

The standard costs for the budget preparation are as follows: the budgetary requirement for a Panel session has been established at CHF 70,000 per day

Swiss Franc equals

1.11 United States Dollar


Motive = money, power, publicity

Truth = fraud, unemployment, disgrace, hopefully prosecution

 

[Dagosa]

You've ignored this request. You and I know its because you have no evidence supporting your contentions because they're pure bullshit. I'd like you to admit that.


The IPCC was created by the UN with a charter to assess scientific studies regarding anthropogenic global warming. If you believe that is a political goal, that's your misonception.

I gave you a link to the specific report I believe contains more than enough evidence to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming: The Physical Science Basis from AR6. You've given us nothing.

That is demonstrably false. Your side has identified a number of scientists who resigned from the IPCC because they disagreed. They weren't fired.

I would hope that a summary for government policy makers would have some input from people with experience in governance. But if you think it is NOT based on science, I'd like to hear what points you believe diverge. In the meanwhile, we can have a look at the bona fides of the people that actually wrote the SPM and see where their expertise lies. I tried including this but the post got bigger than USMB wanted. Go to IPCC Authors (beta) under the Summary for Policy Makers in "The Physical Science Basis" from Working Group I.



Really? Do a search on "Man-made global warming is a fraud and a hoax".

About 52,200,000 results (0.47 seconds)

Looks like you can find lots of them.

Yup.
And none of them from reputable climate science institutes….

 

[Dagosa]

Truth = fraud, unemployment, disgrace, hopefully prosecution

You’re talking about Trump now, right ?

 

[EMH]

from reputable climate science institutes

LOL!!!

"reputable" = taxpayer funded entities obsessed with fudging data to keep the Co2 fraud ongoing...