How many scientists really dispute global warming?

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Nobody is trying to predict tens of thousands of years into the future.

Therefore your comment is irrelevant.

I knew you were going to say that and I had my response ready. The predictions on several fronts of global warming alarmist have not come true. You have already been proven wrong.

If the short term predictions are so good then you tell me what it will be doing a month from now and we will put some real money down on it. I want a real, no bullshit, prediction. Lay it out there.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from drjekyllus:

It is not only a statistical observation. It is not playing with numbers. They went back 420,000 years into the climate record using ice cores and it absolutely showed that CO2 lagged temp. It has nothing to do with where the CO2 came from.

We have another strange claim from GW hoaxsters that heat somehow differentiates between "natural" CO2 and "man-made" CO2. It is absolutely bizarre.

If humans are changing the dynamics of the climate by increasing GHGs in significant and observable quantities then yes it does matter. It is a new and non natural forcing in climate that wasn't present during previous periods of climate change. Under such circumstances, it is barely worthy of the title "pseudo science" to insist that it must be exactly the same as in the past. Science deals with physical reality not just some hand waving about numbers.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from drjekyllus:

I knew you were going to say that and I had my response ready. The predictions on several fronts of global warming alarmist have not come true. You have already been proven wrong.

Wow, you're really having to get vague.

If the short term predictions are so good then you tell me what it will be doing a month from now and we will put some real money down on it. I want a real, no bullshit, prediction. Lay it out there.

Climate is not weather. Do you understand the difference between climate and weather?

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from dcraig:

If humans are changing the dynamics of the climate by increasing GHGs in significant and observable quantities then yes it does matter. It is a new and non natural forcing in climate that wasn't present during previous periods of climate change. Under such circumstances, it is barely worthy of the title "pseudo science" to insist that it must be exactly the same as in the past. Science deals with physical reality not just some hand waving about numbers.

In the past GHGs have changed in significant and observable quantities. Changes in the levels of CO2 LAGGED the temperature.

Its not non natural either. The human species is part of nature. Once humans accept the fact that they are part of nature they will be better off.

Pseudo Science? Pseudo science would be telling people that if they alter their behavior, they can change the climate in a manner that they deem beneficial. Pseudo science would be telling people that if they stop burning fossil fuels they will be able to prevent droughts and floods and extinctions. Pseudo science would be telling people that they can save the world if they only sacrifice enough. Pseudo science? Hell, it sounds like religion to me.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Wow, you're really having to get vague.



Climate is not weather. Do you understand the difference between climate and weather?

So you are claiming you can't predict the short term(weeks, months, years), but you can predict the intermediate term(decades, centuries), but you can't predict the long term(periods of greater than 1000 years). Sounds like total bullshit to me.

I see, you are the guy who claims the market is going to crash, you don't give a timeframe, and then after years and years of waiting you claim success when it does happen.

I take it, you are not willing to put your money on the line for it, but you want me to put my money on the line in increased energy costs and the overall slowing of the economy. Nice Dave. Thanks for help.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from bigdavediode:

No, you don't understand what the word means. A guess is an estimate based on little or no information.

A forecast is "the process of analyzing current and historical data to determine future trends."

Oh!, I know the difference alright. A guess is made by someone without the pedigree and a forecast is made by all those brainiacs with MBA's and PHD's, and other egomaniacs. I mean, how the hell you gonna' justify those 6 and 7 figure salaries, let alone all that time spent in the classroom if you're saying, I'm just making an educated guess. You can analyze all the historical data you like, but as the fine print says, previous performance is no guarantee of future success.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Oh!, I know the difference alright. A guess is made by someone without the pedigree and a forecast is made by all those brainiacs with MBA's and PHD's, and other egomaniacs. I mean, how the hell you gonna' justify those 6 and 7 figure salaries, let alone all that time spent in the classroom if you're saying, I'm just making an educated guess. You can analyze all the historical data you like, but as the fine print says, previous performance is no guarantee of future success.

That sounds about right.

 

[bigdavediode]

I believe that there should be a law that anyone who denigrates scientists and PhD's has to stop using any and all technologies created by scientists and PhD's.

 

[Hello]

Quote from bigdavediode:

I believe that there should be a law that anyone who denigrates scientists and PhD's has to stop using any and all technologies created by scientists and PhD's.

I propose a new plan whereby anyone who uses ineffeicient amounts of data to come up with a hypothesis should be forced to call themselves a failed trader.......

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:

I believe that there should be a law that anyone who denigrates scientists and PhD's has to stop using any and all technologies created by scientists and PhD's.

I believe anyone who spouts off about global warming has to stop using any and all technologies that are claimed to be causing it. How can someone demand that others curb their CO2 consumption while they themselves are polluting away? The word "hypocrite" comes to mind.