That hoary chestnut of the 97% consensus again

I am a person of reason.

You have no reason to exist except to lick the pain off the screen you believe you are causing other posters.

Just like the little red bricks you heave like manhole covers that pain is purely in your mind.


screenlickers are just too lowly to understand that is not real pain their tasting.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I am saying that just by declaring something to have a consensus does not, of itself, constitute a scientific argument. The other point, which you seemed to have missed, is that the 97% consensus declared by John Cook et al. was only arrived at by making some wildly invalid assumptions. In fact, 34.6% of papers that should have been rated as neutral were actually rated as non-neutral. Of those mis-rated papers, 99.4% were rated as endorsements.

I think that I have established my view by now, it's not from the want of stating it anyway. I believe that forcing effect due to CO2 has some effect however I do not see any substantive evidence that it is the main driver. I know that the forcing is supposedly governed by the equation below which being logarithmic means that the increased concentrations have a progressively diminishing warming effect. I also know that there hasn't been any statistically significant increase in the last 16 years which is one reason why so many ex-NASA personnel complained bitterly about Hansen bringing the organisation into disrepute. Even Professor Phil Jones, director of the CRU at the East Anglia has been forced to admit that there hasn't been any statistically measurable increase.

74945338ec357d4a68e5f5356f8f19a0.png


C is the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration in parts per million by volume and C[SUB]0[/SUB] is the reference concentration.

I ascribe to the view of Jasper Kirkby and the CLOUD team at CERN that much of the warming can be explained by an, as yet, unidentified organic aerosol(s) which will be revealed in time after rigorous experimentation.

http://www.livescience.com/15733-mystery-ingredient-influences-cloud-formation.html
Click to expand...
Well I see that you're focusing in on minutae to discredit the whole. That's not really very rational.

I've argued with science deniers for years that the impact on climate by human industrial activity is fairly self evident even to the casual observer. It's not rational to expect that the massive increase in industrial air emmisions over the last 70 years couldn't but not impact climate.

Now you do bring up a credible point ACG that most science deniers discount off hand. Which is why I rarely give their arguments credibility. We do not know all the exact mechanisms of climate change. CO2 is just one emmision standard by which to guage, APG...only one and probably the best understood but again...it's only one. No one in the scientific community denies or even argues that there's a vast gap of knowledge as to what the specfic mechanisms behind APG.

However, what the current body of knowledge does show by incontrovertible fact with a very, very low probability of being wrong is that it is an established fact with widely aggreeing consensus among scientist that current industrial air emmisions (pollutants) output in the order of a hundred billion tons annually of CO2, NOX, SOX, Particulates, Methane and other pollutants has impacted climate.

I mean come on Tom, with that sort of scale even a casual observer would even conclude....well no shit man! You would expect climate to change if you're dumping 100 billion tons of pollutants into the air every year. The point that we haven't elucidated exactly what the mechanism is, doesn't change the fact that change has been observed and a causal relationaship established.

Then counter that with the vast majority of opposition to climate science I have seen is coming directly from Industrial concerns with an vested economic interest and not an objective scientific interest. Primarily the Coal and Petroleum industries.

I have been more than willing to discuss the issue of APG with deniers on the board on the basis that they accept that fact that current indistrial air pollution emmision rates impact climate but that we don't yet know enough about the mechanisms of climate change to introduce policies that could have huge ecnomic consequences as we don't know if either the policies would work or if the cost/benefit value is a workable ratio. Now that's an honest argument. What I hear from the illiterati like Super Freak and Tin Hat (Whom as an educated scientist yourself you have an obligation not to encourage their brand of stupidity.) is to attack and undermine non only the science but the scientist who study climate change as well.

As soon as I see these clowns attack science and scientist and not even trying to have an honest discussion on the topic....it's hard for me to give the science deniers on ACG any crediblity.
 
they are a factless cult.

the wealthy have made sure of their idiocy by feeding them diapers full of crap for decades now
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well I see that you're focusing in on minutae to discredit the whole. That's not really very rational.

I've argued with science deniers for years that the impact on climate by human industrial activity is fairly self evident even to the casual observer. It's not rational to expect that the massive increase in industrial air emmisions over the last 70 years couldn't but not impact climate.
Click to expand...

LMAO... yet you are in the above changing the argument. The AGW fear mongers claims have been that it is CO2 that is driving the change towards higher temperatures. We all acknowledge that industrial pollutants are bad for the air, land and water. But that is not what the fear mongers of AGW are stating. They are saying it is CO2 that is the main driver and that mankind is largely responsible for it.

It is also very common for you fear mongers to trot out the 'it is silly to think we aren't impacting the climate'. We know we impact it. It is the DEGREE that we are impacting it that is in question. It is the fear mongers that trotted out the consensus line of crap and it is the fear mongers that are trying desperately to silence critics. That is why we have people like you continuing to call people 'deniers'... even though it is the fear mongers position that is falling apart.

Now you do bring up a credible point ACG that most science deniers discount off hand. Which is why I rarely give their arguments credibility. We do not know all the exact mechanisms of climate change. CO2 is just one emmision standard by which to guage, APG...only one and probably the best understood but again...it's only one. No one in the scientific community denies or even argues that there's a vast gap of knowledge as to what the specfic mechanisms behind APG.
Click to expand...

Yet despite the above, it is the so called 'climatologists' cult that shouted consensus! and 'debate is over'... why is that Mutt?

However, what the current body of knowledge does show by incontrovertible fact with a very, very low probability of being wrong is that it is an established fact with widely aggreeing consensus among scientist that current industrial air emmisions (pollutants) output in the order of a hundred billion tons annually of CO2, NOX, SOX, Particulates, Methane and other pollutants has impacted climate.
Click to expand...

again with your straw man... saying 'it impacted the climate' is not being debated. What is debated is the degree it is impacting the climate and whether or not mankind is the primary driver of temperature increases.

I mean come on Tom, with that sort of scale even a casual observer would even conclude....well no shit man! You would expect climate to change if you're dumping 100 billion tons of pollutants into the air every year. The point that we haven't elucidated exactly what the mechanism is, doesn't change the fact that change has been observed and a causal relationaship established.
Click to expand...

Yet again it is the fear mongers who have told us repeatedly that CO2 is the primary driver.

Then counter that with the vast majority of opposition to climate science I have seen is coming directly from Industrial concerns with an vested economic interest and not an objective scientific interest. Primarily the Coal and Petroleum industries.
Click to expand...

This is yet another example of the fear mongers bullshit. Proclaiming that it is the coal and oil industries that are driving the opposition. You know who also has a vested interest? Those 'scientists' that are vying for funding from government sources to continue their 'research'. You know who else does? Those that are heavily invested in alternative energy companies that want free money from the government... see Al Gore.

I have been more than willing to discuss the issue of APG with deniers on the board on the basis that they accept that fact that current indistrial air pollution emmision rates impact climate but that we don't yet know enough about the mechanisms of climate change to introduce policies that could have huge ecnomic consequences as we don't know if either the policies would work or if the cost/benefit value is a workable ratio. Now that's an honest argument. What I hear from the illiterati like Super Freak and Tin Hat (Whom as an educated scientist yourself you have an obligation not to encourage their brand of stupidity.) is to attack and undermine non only the science but the scientist who study climate change as well.
Click to expand...

LMAO... yet here in reality the reverse is actually true. It is people like you that attack the actual science and scientists who disagree with you fear mongers. It is your kind that continue with the chants of 'deniers' while at the same time you proclaiming that there is a lot we don't know. Our position all along is that your claims of consensus are bunk. There cannot be a consensus on an issue that (as you admit) has so many unknowns at this point.

You need to stop trying to change your argument.

First it was 'global warming' is caused primarily by man and CO2.
Then it was 'climate change' is what we really meant so that we can cling to it no matter what the weather conditions.
Now you want to pretend that we do not acknowledge that pollution in general is bad... which is most certainly not the case.
You also wish to pretend that we think we have no impact on the climate at all... which is a very poor straw man creation.

As soon as I see these clowns attack science and scientist and not even trying to have an honest discussion on the topic....it's hard for me to give the science deniers on ACG any crediblity.
Click to expand...

yet again, it is you that does the above.

Tell us again mutt... what 'science' courses do climatologists take for their specialty?
 
No matter how you slice it your side is the minority in the field of sceince.

That means you PICK your science for political reasons.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... yet you are in the above changing the argument. The AGW fear mongers claims have been that it is CO2 that is driving the change towards higher temperatures. We all acknowledge that industrial pollutants are bad for the air, land and water. But that is not what the fear mongers of AGW are stating. They are saying it is CO2 that is the main driver and that mankind is largely responsible for it.

It is also very common for you fear mongers to trot out the 'it is silly to think we aren't impacting the climate'. We know we impact it. It is the DEGREE that we are impacting it that is in question. It is the fear mongers that trotted out the consensus line of crap and it is the fear mongers that are trying desperately to silence critics. That is why we have people like you continuing to call people 'deniers'... even though it is the fear mongers position that is falling apart.



Yet despite the above, it is the so called 'climatologists' cult that shouted consensus! and 'debate is over'... why is that Mutt?



again with your straw man... saying 'it impacted the climate' is not being debated. What is debated is the degree it is impacting the climate and whether or not mankind is the primary driver of temperature increases.



Yet again it is the fear mongers who have told us repeatedly that CO2 is the primary driver.



This is yet another example of the fear mongers bullshit. Proclaiming that it is the coal and oil industries that are driving the opposition. You know who also has a vested interest? Those 'scientists' that are vying for funding from government sources to continue their 'research'. You know who else does? Those that are heavily invested in alternative energy companies that want free money from the government... see Al Gore.



LMAO... yet here in reality the reverse is actually true. It is people like you that attack the actual science and scientists who disagree with you fear mongers. It is your kind that continue with the chants of 'deniers' while at the same time you proclaiming that there is a lot we don't know. Our position all along is that your claims of consensus are bunk. There cannot be a consensus on an issue that (as you admit) has so many unknowns at this point.

You need to stop trying to change your argument.

First it was 'global warming' is caused primarily by man and CO2.
Then it was 'climate change' is what we really meant so that we can cling to it no matter what the weather conditions.
Now you want to pretend that we do not acknowledge that pollution in general is bad... which is most certainly not the case.
You also wish to pretend that we think we have no impact on the climate at all... which is a very poor straw man creation.



yet again, it is you that does the above.

Tell us again mutt... what 'science' courses do climatologists take for their specialty?
Click to expand...

Do you get paid by the word? I am so sick and fucking tired of your novella posts. Do you really believe anyone reads them? My favorite is the ones that start "dear morons"...I mean, who reads further? Oh dear morons, that must be written to me. You know what, fuck you.
 
I think super duper doesn't believe what he posts.


for some reason he will defend the undefendable
 
I'm all for accelerating the transition to green technology as quickly as we can - without compromising our economy. But does anyone think there is anything we can actually do to lessen the impact of climate change?
 
Rune said:
Do you get paid by the word? I am so sick and fucking tired of your novella posts. Do you really believe anyone reads them? My favorite is the ones that start "dear morons"...I mean, who reads further? Oh dear morons, that must be written to me. You know what, fuck you.
Click to expand...

Funny, I was just thinking something very similar!
 
Rune said:
Do you get paid by the word? I am so sick and fucking tired of your novella posts. Do you really believe anyone reads them? My favorite is the ones that start "dear morons"...I mean, who reads further? Oh dear morons, that must be written to me. You know what, fuck you.
Click to expand...

See Mutt... the above highlights the brain trust on your fear mongering side of the AGW theory. Enjoy the company.
 
dear idiot the entire field of science has a majority opinion on this.


I honor their opinion not yours
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top