Failing grade on climate

[Omnitheo]

There are literally thousands of papers. I could share every single one and you would reject them all.

But it is you who is proposing a conspiracy theory that stands against the prevailing scientific consensus. Thus the onus is on you to prove that the great majority of scientists studying fields related to climate change and who have published peer reviewed theses on the subject are part of a “hoax” as you call it.

I would not be expected to prove the earth is round in a thread trolled by a flat earther. I should not be expected to do the same here.

[Sparki55]

There are literally thousands of papers. I could share every single one and you would reject them all.

But it is you who is proposing a conspiracy theory that stands against the prevailing scientific consensus. Thus the onus is on you to prove that the great majority of scientists studying fields related to climate change and who have published peer reviewed theses on the subject are part of a “hoax” as you call it.

I would not be expected to prove the earth is round in a thread trolled by a flat earther. I should not be expected to do the same here.

Proving the earth is round is very simple, look at pictures we have from space, the ISS that you can spot zooming around the earth at night; it's 100% fact, no arguement. What you choose to keep stating is that global warming is the same as this. Stating humans are 100% positive that global warming exisits and is caused by people and that charging carbon taxes and making ev's will fix our problem.

If there were and argument for global warmning is human caused as easily laid out as the earth is flat argument, we wouldn't be disscussing it here.

[Verum]

Proving the earth is round is very simple, look at pictures we have from space, the ISS that you can spot zooming around the earth at night; it's 100% fact, no arguement. What you choose to keep stating is that global warming is the same as this. Stating humans are 100% positive that global warming exisits and is caused by people and that charging carbon taxes and making ev's will fix our problem.

If there were and argument for global warmning is human caused as easily laid out as the earth is flat argument, we wouldn't be disscussing it here.

Proving the Earth is round isn't hard, though as I said before, most people are taking it on faith that there isn't a conspiracy by scientists and others in claiming that it is so. Unfortunately, some people seem to think that there is some kind of conspiracy of huge blind-spot in the appropriate scientific community when it comes to man made climate change. To me that is just absurd.

Man made climate change is certainly relatively hard to explain and demonstrate, but that doesn't make it less likely to be true than if it were easy to explain and demonstrate. Most people don't understand Einstein's special theory of relativity, but that doesn't mean that Newton's laws are more likely to be true. Occam's razor only applies when two theories could equally well explain the phenomenon in question. Ease of explanation and demonstration to non-experts is generally irrelevant to the validity of the theory.

As for whether what we are doing is going to really help, I doubt we are doing anywhere near enough and I am certain that some steps supposedly taken to reduce our impact have actually had net detrimental effects. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Unfortunately the steps we need to take are not easy for some to accept, especially if such require that they change their lifestyle by carbon emission reduction, or have to accept living near things they consider annoying, such as windmills, or even scary, such as nuclear power plants.

[Glacier]

Proving the earth is round is very simple, look at pictures we have from space, the ISS that you can spot zooming around the earth at night; it's 100% fact, no arguement. What you choose to keep stating is that global warming is the same as this. Stating humans are 100% positive that global warming exisits and is caused by people and that charging carbon taxes and making ev's will fix our problem.

If there were and argument for global warmning is human caused as easily laid out as the earth is flat argument, we wouldn't be disscussing it here.

The problem is this. Omnitheo and Verum know that 97% agree about something about climate change. The 97% statement is merely that the earth is warming and humans are a main cause. It says nothing about it being catastrophic and nothing about what we should do about it. But Omnitheo and Verum do not know this (or choose to remain ignorant of this fact). This results in everyone talking over each other.

The fact remains, the 97% of scientists agree, including J. Curry and R. Spencer. That's why I say Verum claiming it's hubris or some such nonsense is just ridiculous. I post graphs and data, and instead of refuting them as the should, the believers just ignore them as if they don't understand the science. Maybe I'm wrong, and they do understand the graphs, so why not offer a critique of the data instead of some strawman about how I don't agree with the 97% of scientists when I do.

[Verum]

The problem is this. Omnitheo and Verum know that 97% agree about something about climate change. The 97% statement is merely that the earth is warming and humans are a main cause. It says nothing about it being catastrophic and nothing about what we should do about it. But Omnitheo and Verum do not know this (or choose to remain ignorant of this fact). This results in everyone talking over each other.

The fact remains, the 97% of scientists agree, including J. Curry and R. Spencer. That's why I say Verum claiming it's hubris or some such nonsense is just ridiculous. I post graphs and data, and instead of refuting them as the should, the believers just ignore them as if they don't understand the science. Maybe I'm wrong, and they do understand the graphs, so why not offer a critique of the data instead of some strawman about how I don't agree with the 97% of scientists when I do.

Lol! You claim that others do not understand the science, when you constantly post fringe "science" as if it carries weight.

Why don't I offer a critique of the data? How about this, post a link to a paper which has been peer reviewed and published in a well respected, main-stream science publication and I'll address it. Otherwise, all you are posting is untrustworthy claims by scientists who have not had their work reviewed in the manner all good scientists hope to have their work reviewed, critically, by the foremost experts in a field.

[JLives]

The problem is this. Omnitheo and Verum know that 97% agree about something about climate change. The 97% statement is merely that the earth is warming and humans are a main cause. It says nothing about it being catastrophic and nothing about what we should do about it. But Omnitheo and Verum do not know this (or choose to remain ignorant of this fact). This results in everyone talking over each other.

The fact remains, the 97% of scientists agree, including J. Curry and R. Spencer. That's why I say Verum claiming it's hubris or some such nonsense is just ridiculous. I post graphs and data, and instead of refuting them as the should, the believers just ignore them as if they don't understand the science. Maybe I'm wrong, and they do understand the graphs, so why not offer a critique of the data instead of some strawman about how I don't agree with the 97% of scientists when I do.

You're missing a key part there which is "at an accelerated pace". The climate always changes but not like it is currently. It's the pace that's the pressing issue.

And, of course, scientists don't say what to do about it. That's the job of the rest of us, not scientists. They're just processing the data.

I don't care to debate your (or anyone else's) charts and graphs because neither you, nor I, are climate scientists so who cares? We're not qualified to debate the specifics. I'm not going to debate brain surgery either.

[Dizzy1]

You're missing a key part there which is "at an accelerated pace". The climate always changes but not like it is currently. It's the pace that's the pressing issue.

The climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, or even billions (depending on what you want to believe) - but we are able to "determine" that the climate is changing at an accelerated pace because we've been recording it for just over a century.

Humans are funny - think we have the answers to everything.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing our impact on the environment - there's no reason not to. But I don't believe we have even close to the impact on climate that people want us to believe.

[JLives]

Our technology may have been collecting data for 50 or so years but the planet has been collecting it for far longer.

[Because_They_Lie]

What is the reason that none of you believe that this increase in extreme weather - so called Climate change is NOT being caused by the United Nations, NASA, Harvard University and Military? Why do YOU doubt that Climate Change is a war on the peoples and land intentionally done by TPTB?

Honest question

[rustled]

You're missing a key part there which is "at an accelerated pace". The climate always changes but not like it is currently. It's the pace that's the pressing issue.

And, of course, scientists don't say what to do about it. That's the job of the rest of us, not scientists. They're just processing the data.

I don't care to debate your (or anyone else's) charts and graphs because neither you, nor I, are climate scientists so who cares? We're not qualified to debate the specifics. I'm not going to debate brain surgery either.

The key part, to me, is the policy around this.

IMO, those who continually back and promote dreadful policy that harms the environment and impoverishes people, particularly when it's most detrimental to the poor, should understand exactly what they're backing and promoting. They should be able to show that what they're doing is both necessary and effective. And yet you can do neither, and you cannot point to any scientist who can prove it, either.

Of course scientists don't say what to do about it, but you do, regularly, by trying to shut down any discussion with "planet full of scientists" and other nonsense and refusing to acknowledge the harm done by the policy initiated in the name of CAGW/AGW/ACC.

You fully admit you do not understand the science, and yet you take absolutely no responsibility for using what you do not understand to support dreadful policy. This, to me, is absolutely no different than members of the flock refusing to acknowledge the many large and small harms done in God's name, and abdicating any responsibility with "we don't fully understand God's plan" and continually deferring to the priesthood, pretending there's some magical infallibility at work when it's simply human nature at its worst.

Whether or not the CAGW/AGW/ACC champions started out with the best of intentions, at this point, with all the failed models and nothing to show for all the harm they've done, they are simply taking advantage of the gullible. And by continually shutting down any discussion about whether or not all this effort is necessary or effective, you are empowering them to do more of same.

Harm done is the elephant in the room you continually avoid.

Climate change policy gets a failing grade. And IMO, those of you who continue to talk the talk that allows and encourages politicians to enact harmful policy, without ever taking any responsibility for the consequences, get a failing grade on climate change policy activism.

[Glacier]

Lol! You claim that others do not understand the science, when you constantly post fringe "science" as if it carries weight.

Why don't I offer a critique of the data? How about this, post a link to a paper which has been peer reviewed and published in a well respected, main-stream science publication and I'll address it. Otherwise, all you are posting is untrustworthy claims by scientists who have not had their work reviewed in the manner all good scientists hope to have their work reviewed, critically, by the foremost experts in a field.

What are you talking about? I have not posted a shred of fringe science. There's not a single established scientific fact you agree with that I don't (at least that I can think of). That fact that you cannot seem to grasp this simple truth seems to me to mean that you clearly do not understand the scientific arguments very well.

You're missing a key part there which is "at an accelerated pace". The climate always changes but not like it is currently. It's the pace that's the pressing issue.

That's simply not true, JLives. It is not rising at an accelerated rate. I've gone through this exercise before, but I have to get to work, so don't have time to explain now. It might be at the high end, but it's hardly unprecedented as the alarmists keep claiming it is.

[Omnitheo]

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http ... 5.full.pdf

Now as Glacier has repeatedly quoted the "97% of scientists" fact, albeit incorrectly, here's an update on that. Firstly, it is not 97% of scientists, it was 97% of peer reviewed published papers over the decade that supported anthropogenic climate change.
Now, a look back at the remaining <3% that concluded otherwise has found that those papers are full of flaws.

Here's a link to that paper.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-1597-5

[The Green Barbarian]

Firstly, it is not 97% of scientists, it was 97% of peer reviewed published papers over the decade that supported anthropogenic climate change.

This is just completely manufactured crap.

[Omnitheo]

Nope, first here's a published scientific study on the papers:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... /1686.full

And here's an expansion on that work
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... matechange

So yes, according to these findings, 97% of climate papers published between 1993 and 2003 support Anthropogenic Climate Change. And now new studies have shown those remaining 3% to be deeply flawed.

So not manufactured crap. Meanwhile your colourful response devoid of any facts is a lot more akin to the thing you are describing.

[JLives]

The key part, to me, is the policy around this.

IMO, those who continually back and promote dreadful policy that harms the environment and impoverishes people, particularly when it's most detrimental to the poor, should understand exactly what they're backing and promoting. They should be able to show that what they're doing is both necessary and effective. And yet you can do neither, and you cannot point to any scientist who can prove it, either.

Of course scientists don't say what to do about it, but you do, regularly, by trying to shut down any discussion with "planet full of scientists" and other nonsense and refusing to acknowledge the harm done by the policy initiated in the name of CAGW/AGW/ACC.

You fully admit you do not understand the science, and yet you take absolutely no responsibility for using what you do not understand to support dreadful policy. This, to me, is absolutely no different than members of the flock refusing to acknowledge the many large and small harms done in God's name, and abdicating any responsibility with "we don't fully understand God's plan" and continually deferring to the priesthood, pretending there's some magical infallibility at work when it's simply human nature at its worst.

Whether or not the CAGW/AGW/ACC champions started out with the best of intentions, at this point, with all the failed models and nothing to show for all the harm they've done, they are simply taking advantage of the gullible. And by continually shutting down any discussion about whether or not all this effort is necessary or effective, you are empowering them to do more of same.

Harm done is the elephant in the room you continually avoid.

Climate change policy gets a failing grade. And IMO, those of you who continue to talk the talk that allows and encourages politicians to enact harmful policy, without ever taking any responsibility for the consequences, get a failing grade on climate change policy activism.

You're being deliberately obtuse by conflating two unrelated issues. The climate changing has NOTHING to do with how we react to it changing. And scientists have NOTHING to do with policy. You're doing it within the same sentence. Do you understand that they are separate issues? Either you don't, or you do and this is deliberate, so which is it? So I will repeat myself, climate change occurring because of human activities is an accepted fact by the vast majority of climate scientists (the link is above proving that BTW) and has NOTHING to do with good or bad policies we put in place because of it. I am not shutting down discussion on policy. But I will not debate what is a widely accepted fact that climate change is occurring. There is no debate on that particular area except among the willfully ignorant (and I don't use that term lightly).