Global Warming: For Experts Only

[futurecurrents]

Not sure FC.
Thing is some of the stuff he comes out with is so way off base. It isn't just skepticism of certain scientific detail which is healthy, but more a denial of basic science and principles of chemistry.

Perhaps it's just Truthiness.
Sometimes people prefer facts they wish were true, 'cause maybe it makes them feel like a ground breaker in some obscure fashion or other. Even as we've seen in this thread alone, actual scientists like Shaviv, who should know better, do it too. Mind you, he has the excuse of making a few $$ by it.

It's annoying and somewhat disappointing but he's ok. Unlike Jerm who just starts out at the get go to be offensive, using predominantly cut&paste argument in his closed minded and ignorant denial trolling.

Thanks for the response Stu.

He is acting exactly like a think tank operative. The double agent/Trojan horse thing. It's a perfect way to instill doubt among those on the fence. Virtually every scientist he refers to to support his argument are industry whores and clearly obviously mistaken. Are we to believe that someone with the intelligence of him goes there for the truth? He says CO2 is not really an important greenhouse gas? That temps have caused it to rise? That this is all about Hansen?

There is no question that think tanks have agents out on the internet at sites just like this one spreading denier machine propaganda. Right? Does anyone doubt this? Trump's election has shown that social media influence by interest groups is yuge and pervasive.

I smell a rat. They would act just like him. They are usually some kind of scientist - never a climate scientist - to give them some respectability. They would post on other topics so as not to appear focused on just this. They would bury their lies amongst impressive sounding verbage. They would appear as liberals to make their denial more credible. They would get you, me and every intelligent logical person to agree with them on every other topic so that they have more credibility on this. They would not cater to the right as they are already in the denial camp.

 

[jem]

there are thousands of skeptical scientists
and some of them are published climate scientists.
Humlum authored the paper showing you that co2 levels trails warming and cooling.

so you are lying your ass off.
Why don't you produce a single paper showing man made co2 causes warming which does not rely on failed models?

finally it does not take a scientist to see that you charts graft instrument data onto proxy data and that the many of the proxies do not show the warming that the instrument data does.

So every climate scientist on earth is wrong?

NO PUBLISHING CLIMATE SCIENTIST DENIES MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

Jerm, just STFU.

 

[futurecurrents]

there are thousands of skeptical scientists
and some of them are published climate scientists.
Humlum authored the paper showing you that co2 levels trails warming and cooling.

so you are lying your ass off.
Why don't you produce a single paper showing man made co2 causes warming which does not rely on failed models?

finally it does not take a scientist to see that you charts graft instrument data onto proxy data and that the many of the proxies do not show the warming that the instrument data does.

You just don't seem to understand. Holy shit you are thick.

NO PUBLISHING CLIMATE SCIENTIST DENIES MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

You keep saying shit but you offer no proof of anything.

And I told you to STFU. Whackjob.

 

[jem]

skeptical is the name for scientists who don't believe there is scientific proof that man made co2 is causing warming or significant warming. (depending on the survey)
there are thousands of them.

your ploy is juvenile.

why don't you see the reality... co2 levels trail warming up and down. Clouds and water vapor are very hard to model. you don't know man made co2 is causing warming. If you did you would stop with the name calling and provide science.

 

[futurecurrents]

skeptical is the name for scientists who don't believe there is scientific proof that man made co2 is causing warming or significant warming. (depending on the survey)
there are thousands of them.

your ploy is juvenile.

why don't you see the reality... co2 levels trail warming up and down. Clouds and water vapor are very hard to model. you don't know man made co2 is causing warming. If you did you would stop with the name calling and provide science.

and still waiting for the quote or paper summary or anything showing a publishing climate scientist denying man made global warming.

Come back when you have it. You are really getting old.

 

[fhl]

 

[stu]

He is acting exactly like a think tank operative. The double agent/Trojan horse thing. It's a perfect way to instill doubt among those on the fence. Virtually every scientist he refers to to support his argument are industry whores and clearly obviously mistaken. Are we to believe that someone with the intelligence of him goes there for the truth? He says CO2 is not really an important greenhouse gas? That temps have caused it to rise? That this is all about Hansen?

Those are some good points. I'm not sure he posts in the kind of pattern a professional denier would need to for their 30 pieces of silver.
Sad though, bigly.

 

[stu]

skeptical is the name for scientists who don't believe there is scientific proof that man made co2 is causing warming

More technically, dickhead is the name for scientists who don't believe there is scientific proof that man made co2 is causing warming as it is contrary to basic scientific principles.

Skeptical is the name for scientists who don't believe there is enough scientific evidence to predict or ascertain the exact extent to which the climate will change due to man made co2 warming. They're pedantic skeptics.

 

[stu]

why don't you see the reality... co2 levels trail warming up and down

And why wouldn't they be trailing the last and leading the next

 

[OddTrader]

Carbon dioxide captures heat. Its basic physics. You can prove this in a lab or a simple home experiment, and you can show how much heat it captures. There isn't any doubt about it...

I am only a newbie but don't might to provide my guess after reading reading so many ET posts on this topic.

1. Can humans' collective efforts plus some advanced scientific technologies/inventions now/future be able to change/control something like the climate or weather or earthquake or UFO in the nature, according to what we want/expect? Probably not - Not easy at all. At least not anything significantly! The Universe is too Huge, relatively! imo

2. Could humans' collective efforts like producing more CO2 be able to adversely change our climate Beyond our control/expectation? Absolutely Yes! But we perhaps just unsure whether the potential change(s) would be a favourable trend or an unfavourable trend. That is the main problem. imo

2A. One possibility would be:
The change could be mainly/merely a shift of timing. Our normally winter months would become new summer months during a year, while normal summer months becoming extremely cold.

2B. Another possibility:
The temperature cycle would change to have new peak and new bottom every cycle. However, perhaps with a very little upwards (or downwards, depending on observation timing).

It is actually an issue of volatility! Therefore, all the supporters and the challengers of climate change can be both correct, some of the times! The usual arguments would never cease - Both sides could provide valid data sets, evidence based!

3. Should we do something for improvement and precaution? Personally, I would think yes, we should.

It's just like hedging in financial trading. Because we cannot control how low will be the lowest or highest temperature that we can still survive in that kind of extreme climate conditions. And we don't know when the worst climate would come to hurt us in the future.

Just 2 cents! LOL

Q
2017 California wildfires - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_California_wildfires - Cached
The 2017 California wildfire season was the most destructive one on record, which saw multiple wildfires burning across California. A total of 8,777 fires have burned 1,371,454 acres (5,550.08 km2), according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, including five of the 20 most destructive ...
UQ