Trump and climate change

[jem]

there are no underlying peer reviewed studies showing man made co2 causes warming. There were are few studies based on now failed computer models.
But there is no science showing man made co2 causes warming.


Co2 can cause warming and co2 causes cooling. We don't really know the impact of adding more because we don't have a good understanding of clouds.

eh...the underlying studies aren't. Take of it what you will. I'm trained in math/science so I just look at the numbers.

 

[viruscore1]

there are no underlying peer reviewed studies showing man made co2 causes warming. There were are few studies based on now failed computer models.
But there is no science showing man made co2 causes warming.
Co2 can cause warming and co2 causes cooling. We don't really know the impact of adding more because we don't have a good understanding of clouds.

Co2 is required for plant growth. imagine all the mj planted for consumption. That'll even everything out.

 

[jem]

I have wondered if more co2 might be the only way we can feed the population explosion.

Co2 is required for plant growth. imagine all the mj planted for consumption. That'll even everything out.

 

[gwb-trading]

eh...the underlying studies aren't. Take of it what you will. I'm trained in math/science so I just look at the numbers.

You post a link to an blog article linked to paper from John Cook, the owner of the Al Gore funded Skeptical Science site. Cook is a former cartoonist (not a scientist) who authored a paper claiming a 97% consensus based on abstracts from papers. Of course over 300 authors of the papers came out to state clearly that their papers were mis-classified by Cook - disputing the claim that their papers supported AGW.

Anyone who is trained in math & science like myself with multiple engineering degrees will tell you with certainty that the math presented in these papers claiming a "97% consensus" is a joke. For example it is easy to simply reverse Cook's assertions regarding the papers and show there is a mere 0.3% consensus - fully exposing the fallacy of his assertions.

If you want to be educated regarding the mathematical and scientific realities of the "97%" consensus - here are some articles from mainstream publications to help you out.

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” (links to many sources)

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

97% CONSENSUS? NO! GLOBAL WARMING MATH MYTHS & SOCIAL PROOFS (Detailed Rebuttal)

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus

 

[futurecurrents]

You post a link to an blog article linked to paper from John Cook, the owner of the Al Gore funded Skeptical Science site. Cook is a former cartoonist (not a scientist) who authored a paper claiming a 97% consensus based on abstracts from papers. Of course over 300 authors of the papers came out to state clearly that their papers were mis-classified by Cook - disputing the claim that their papers supported AGW.

Anyone who is trained in math & science like myself with multiple engineering degrees will tell you with certainty that the math presented in these papers claiming a "97% consensus" is a joke. For example it is easy to simply reverse Cook's assertions regarding the papers and show there is a mere 0.3% consensus - fully exposing the fallacy of his assertions.

If you want to be educated regarding the mathematical and scientific realities of the "97%" consensus - here are some articles from mainstream publications to help you out.

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” (links to many sources)

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

97% CONSENSUS? NO! GLOBAL WARMING MATH MYTHS & SOCIAL PROOFS (Detailed Rebuttal)

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus

Yes, the consensus is more than 97% with virtually no publishing climate scientists denying it. About one in one thousand.

The consensus is certainly at least 97%. You cannot find a single quote from one publishing climate scientist deny it.

And it doesn't matter what jem or you think, you are not climate scientists. None of which deny AGW.

Your debunking is denier machine lies. By repeating them you are a liar. A fucking liar. But we knew that about you a jerm already.



I suggest that you educate yourself on the matter because frankly you guys seem to be ignorant and deluded about it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[2][3][4][5]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

"The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

 

[traderob]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler
8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry.All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry.National Review reports:

Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque.

 

[gwb-trading]

Yes, the consensus is more than 97% with virtually no publishing climate scientists denying it. About one in one thousand.

The consensus is certainly at least 97%. You cannot find a single quote from one publishing climate scientist deny it.

And it doesn't matter what jem or you think, you are not climate scientists. None of which deny AGW.

Your debunking is denier machine lies. By repeating them you are a liar. A fucking liar. But we knew that about you a jerm already.



I suggest that you educate yourself on the matter because frankly you guys seem to be ignorant and deluded about it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[2][3][4][5]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

"The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

The only time there is a 97% or greater consensus is when a dictator is elected. It is amusing how you prattle on about "consensus" -- confusing a popularity contest with factual science.

Naturally the "consensus" is arrived at by simply not counting the opinions of detractors by filtering them out, For example, Dr. Judith Curry, head of the Climate Department at Georgia Tech, is never considered to be a "climate scientist" in all of your magical surveys despite her many papers and credentials... and she is just one of many examples of detractors the alarmists don't consider worthy of being counted as "climate scientists".

Bottom line: You cannot arrive at a "consensus" by simply filtering out the opinions of those who disagree with you and mis-categorizing the papers of others. Babbling on endlessly about a "consensus" is pretty meaningless when every day the actual scientific facts build against your politicized AGW theory -- which is quickly demonstrating that it holds no heat.

 

[futurecurrents]

Yes, no climate expert denies that man made global warming is true and more than 97% explicitly say that it is true.

Still waiting for the quote from just one denying it. Not bullshit surveys of astronauts and petroleum engineers.

But speaking about petroleum...

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

 

[achilles28]

Yes, no climate expert denies that man made global warming is true and more than 97% explicitly say that it is true.

Still waiting for the quote from just one denying it. Not bullshit surveys of astronauts and petroleum engineers.

But speaking about petroleum...

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

You're a liar. Stop lying.

The 97% is a lie.

Only 32% of scientists polled said global warming is man-made. The other 68% of scientists did not hold an opinion, one way or the other.

Only 1/3rd of scientists think global warming is man made.

Get the facts straight.

 

[futurecurrents]

You're a liar. Stop lying.

The 97% is a lie.

Only 32% of scientists polled said global warming is man-made. The other 68% of scientists did not hold an opinion, one way or the other.

Only 1/3rd of scientists think global warming is man made.

Get the facts straight.

So let's the quote from one of them. Just one publishing CLIMATOLOGIST, you blithering idiot.

The consensus is actually more like 99.9%