You should be afraid and you should act

[Sunsettommy]

Someone else has been crowing over the IPCC and their touting of 'peer reviewed' studies as actual non biased science...........like I asked, where were the opinions/reviews from scientists with opposing views.

Crickets.

The IPCC does a specific Meta Analysis process in which they choose what they think meets their confirmation bias which is why it isn't credible as they are a government-based and controlled organization that uses these highly selective set of papers of which some are grey reviewed and non-reviewed papers in their drive to promote their climate solutions to a perceived concern of which are all shown to be bogus.

AGW is a SCAM pure and simple!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's amazing that the I Protect Communist China organization focuses exclusively on the one major industrial nation that not only maintained, BUT LOWERED their carbon emissions the past few years while ignore the 2 main nations, China and India, whose CO2 output not only dwarfs that of the USA but is great increasing

My advise? Ignore the IPCC and boot the UN out of America

 

[Delldude]

Look at this:

The Dubai flooding last week illustrated how urban engineering is failing a major climate change test. In a world marked by the increasing possibility of extreme weather events, no matter how big and modern expanding urban environments around the globe get, they don’t have enough places for all the water to go when there’s too much of it.

The United Arab Emirates’ city and others like it built on previously uninhabitable areas reflect 20th century urban development ideas that result in the blocking of natural water absorption systems. Add increased populations, bringing with them more waste — and more need for landfills and other waste disposal methods — and the drainage challenge will continue to bedevil major global cities like Dubai facing more frequent, massive rainfalls.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/21/dubai-flooding-and-a-climate-change-drain-test-the-world-is-failing.html

 

[BackAgain]

Fear combined with hope can motivate the public to act rather than make people feel helpless

Opinion: I’m a climate scientist. If you knew what I know, you’d be terrified too

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/opinions/climate-scientist-scare-doom-anxiety-mcguire

Nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fear combined with hope can motivate the public to act rather than make people feel helpless

Opinion: I’m a climate scientist. If you knew what I know, you’d be terrified too

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/opinions/climate-scientist-scare-doom-anxiety-mcguire

Q. By how much must the USA lower its carbon footprint to save the planet?

A. $78 Trillion

 

[ReinyDays]

Someone else has been crowing over the IPCC and their touting of 'peer reviewed' studies as actual non biased science...........like I asked, where were the opinions/reviews from scientists with opposing views.

Crickets.

The opposing views are published in the scientific media ... where political opinion is strictly prohibited ...

Scientific method is a confrontational process ... half of the researchers should be pursuing the opposite of any consensus ... otherwise we're back to the 18th Century and believing false claims ... where would we be today if James Maxwell believed Sir Issac Newton? ... still believing gravity exists ...

That's what I see among the Alarmists ... child-like beliefs ... the miasma theory of global warming or something ... carbon dioxide doesn't have magical powers, she affects temperatures in proportion to her mass ... which is very little ... and 1ºC is very little ...

 

[Crick]

Scientific method is a confrontational process ... half of the researchers should be pursuing the opposite of any consensus ... otherwise we're back to the 18th Century and believing false claims ...

Really? Do you believe that half of all astrophysicists should be examing the flat earth theory or geocentrism or that doctors and biologists should be making certain diseases aren't caused by demons and spirits? Can you spell W-A-S-T-E O-F T-I-M-E?

 

[ding]

Really? Do you believe that half of all astrophysicists should be examing the flat earth theory or geocentrism or that doctors and biologists should be making certain diseases aren't caused by demons and spirits? Can you spell W-A-S-T-E O-F T-I-M-E?

Is anyone questioning that? Is it a controversy? Because those would be my answers to why they shouldn't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC does a specific Meta Analysis process in which they choose what they think meets their confirmation bias which is why it isn't credible as they are a government-based and controlled organization that uses these highly selective set of papers of which some are grey reviewed and non-reviewed papers in their drive to promote their climate solutions to a perceived concern of which are all shown to be bogus.

AGW is a SCAM pure and simple!!!

The IPCC already told us they were a wealth redistribution organization

 

[Delldude]

The opposing views are published in the scientific media ... where political opinion is strictly prohibited ...

Like I said, they are few and far between, if at all. Opposing views at this stage of the game are career ending.

 

[jc456]

The opposing views are published in the scientific media ... where political opinion is strictly prohibited ...

Scientific method is a confrontational process ... half of the researchers should be pursuing the opposite of any consensus ... otherwise we're back to the 18th Century and believing false claims ... where would we be today if James Maxwell believed Sir Issac Newton? ... still believing gravity exists ...

That's what I see among the Alarmists ... child-like beliefs ... the miasma theory of global warming or something ... carbon dioxide doesn't have magical powers, she affects temperatures in proportion to her mass ... which is very little ... and 1ºC is very little ...

Those scientists want money over facts

 

[ReinyDays]

Those scientists want money over facts

Right ... Darwin didn't discover evolution, he discovered a way to make money off evolution ... "Origin of Species" is still in print ... [ka-ching] ... Einstein sure as hell didn't solve the gravity problem, he solved how to make money off the gravity problem ... Newton, Euler, Planck ... rich people don't get rich with science ...

... they study bookkeeping ...

 

[Crick]

Like I said, they are few and far between, if at all. Opposing views at this stage of the game are career ending.

The problem here is not that so few scientists oppose AGW, the problem is your conclusion about the reason for that. AGW is heavily supported by empirical evidence and science. The few people arguing against it do NOT have empirical evidence and do NOT have valid science. They don't get published because their studies are crap. But you don't believe that. For POLITICAL reasons, you want to reject that the use of fossil fuels could be causing global warming. You have no science supporting that, only your political opinions. Got it? the problem is YOU.

 

[Delldude]

The problem here is not that so few scientists oppose AGW, the problem is your conclusion about the reason for that. AGW is heavily supported by empirical evidence and science.

Supported by highly biased and politically driven 'empirical evidence'. That's it in a nut shell.

The few people arguing against it do NOT have empirical evidence and do NOT have valid science.

Yes they do.

They don't get published because their studies are crap.

They don't get published because of political bias that has to exist or their funding won't be there.

For POLITICAL reasons, you want to reject that the use of fossil fuels could be causing global warming.

Is this an example of your 'empirical evidence'............using the definitive word 'could'......?

You have no science supporting that, only your political opinions

Nope.............several excellent documentaries which pointed out the many flaws in your and others 'empirical evidence'.

 

[Crick]

Supported by highly biased and politically driven 'empirical evidence'. That's it in a nut shell.

Politically biased empirical evidence? Do you know what the word "empirical" means? Can you explain how that could come to be and how you have come to that conclusion

Yes they do.

Show it to us.

They don't get published because of political bias that has to exist or their funding won't be there.

You have to believe that every scientist on Earth is lying to us and that simply fails a sanity test. When scientists do studies, they occasionally get results they didn't anticipate and still they get published. If AGW is not real, lots and lots of scientists would be getting results that demonstrate that. So you must assume they are all lying about their results. Those tens of thousands of studies must have been completely falsified. You'd have to be some sort of idiot to believe that's the case.

Is this an example of your 'empirical evidence'............using the definitive word 'could'......?

English much? I was talking about YOUR assumptions. And "could" is the proper term to use in any study of the natural science. How many times have I had to tell you morons that there are no PROOFS in the natural sciences, only evidence.

Nope.............several excellent documentaries which pointed out the many flaws in your and others 'empirical evidence'.

Documentaries are not science, they are tv shows. Show us some valid empirical evidence that you think tends to falsify AGW.

 

[Delldude]

Show it to us.

They're here...........

Documentaries are not science, they are tv shows.

When they are backed by scientific data they sure as hell are.

 

[Crick]

They're here...........

If there was supposed to be a link there, you missed it.

When they are backed by scientific data they sure as hell are.

No, they are tv shows talking about some science. If they are backed by published scientific studies, show us the fucking studies. Follow the links, if you've got them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We de facto redistribute wealth through climate change — official motto of IPCC, I Protect Communist China

 

[Delldude]

No, they are tv shows talking about some science.

Maybe............but when they back up their comments with data..........your premise fly's out the window.

If they are backed by published scientific studies, show us the fucking studies.

Recorded data over time, tends to blow these studies of yours out of the water.

Follow the links, if you've got them.

They're here.............on another thread.

 

[Crick]

Maybe............but when they back up their comments with data..........your premise fly's out the window.

Good articles and shows about science provide links to the studies on which they're based. So, show us the studies and not the know-nothing pundit sensationalizing material they likely don't know any better than the back of their heads.

Recorded data over time, tends to blow these studies of yours out of the water.

WHAT recorded data? The recorded temperature data certainly shows unprecedented warming. The recorded CO2 data, measured by instrument and proxy show unprecedented CO2 increases. What have YOU got that shows something different?

They're here.............on another thread.

Then you should have little problem presenting it here.