As to the "majority of climate scientists"

I suppose you are unable to see the irony of your comment, huh? If science hadn't "advanced mankind" would we be discussing AGW? So this conversation is about what then? Unintended consequences and a whole lot of scientific mea culpa?

 

I understand your limitations here. And I sympathize. Of course, those graphs are the outputs of landmark studies and compilations of studies from hundreds of teams of folks who did the work. I know, you didn't bother investigating how those graphs were developed. I understand it's work. And effort, neither of which you seem willing to apply here. For you to be credible here, you're going to have to try a lot harder.

 

You're funny. Obvious. Perhaps, instead of trying to assume smug, you should attend the conversation. Your willingness to ignore the warts of the process seems purposeful. I suppose you have a dog in the hunt then? The "nothing to see here" approach seems to hide the real purpose of why this discussion is so worrisome to you. Why? I suppose it won't do any good to ask you to become more informed... You seem perfectly willing to be superficial.

 

We all do. The vast majority of the world's population accept the scientific proof they have been presented with. They're trying to keep the planet healthy while fools like you are, by way of willful ignorance, slowly killing it. Those are the irrefutable facts. Sorry they don't coincide with the defenders of the fossil fuel industry you choose to align yourself with.

 

I am not sure that is the reason it would cause warming. It is simply conservation of energy. You cannot destroy energy. You merely change it. Moving air has X amount of kinetic energy due to the rate of movement. When that movement is reduced, part of the kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy and the air warms up.

Another way to think about it is the air started moving because of thermal energy from the sun. It converted thermal energy from the sun into kinetic energy. As you the kinetic energy is dissipated, it converts back to thermal energy.

 

Anthropogenic climate change has become yet another data vs dogma, science vs religion, impasse.

It may be best to just ignore the isolated, hardcore ideological ilk that insists everybody can poop into the heavens with impunity.

There is still a residue of incorrigible deniers of biological evolution, embracers of a heliocentric creation, and maybe even be a few flat-earthers about.

We can just indulge them. Smile and nod when they spout their antic notions.

 

Most people hold their beliefs about global warming based on one of the three.
1) They understand the science.

2) They believe that there is a scientific consensus.

3) It is because of politics.

What is your basis for believing as you do?

 

Why be obtuse here? When you say obvious BS like "keep the planet healthy", aren't you really just excusing the obviously selfish and destructive behavior of the primary acolytes of your faith? Seems as much. When you suggest we're "slowly killing" something, perhaps having actual credible evidence of such would be helpful for you to support your baseless assertion. I suppose that only at the most superficial level, you believe that those who don't follow your inanity are strident defenders of fossil fuels. I suppose it's the only option you either understand, or you believe that branding folks in such a way is onerous in or of itself.

 

But........it isn't BS as indicated by science and observing the evidence of human caused global warming.

 

You say stuff like that, absent any context, any specificity. And yet, we have more active food production capacity today than ever before. We have safe, stable energy, we have improving access to clean and safe drinking water around the world. We have one of the greatest biodensity blooms in our planets history. Of course that's the harm you're addressing here, right? I would also point out that so far, ZERO of the predictive "harms" have yet to materialize, of show indications that they will. Zero.

 

But.........we don't. The energy we are using is what is slowly killing the planet.

 

Is it? You don't seem to actually show, or demonstrate an actual "killing" example. Ok, like what?

 

Corrupt science is the lapdog of corrupt government corrupt business enterprises.

“Sadly all the Taxpayer funded shenanigans in Colombia traceable back to a deposit of funds with the Clintons pales in comparison to what the Clintons pulled in Nigeria. The scams the Clintons pulled on the US Taxpayers to enrich themselves working with the murderous warlords in Africa are detailed in the book (they involve, but are not limited to, direct financial aid from the US to African states (that somehow found their way into an account the Clinton’s had material influence over) and kickbacks from friends benefiting from the USAID’s Development Credit Authority (which is funded by US taxpayers))”
THOMHARTMANN.COM, Clinton used trade agreements to get access to taxpayer, 1/19/16.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/t...’s-used-trade-agreements-get-access-taxpayer-

 

Yet.

 

Fake Science Vs. Fake News?

"Ramping up wind power in America would also dial up the nation's temperatures, a new study out of Harvard found.
While wind energy is widely celebrated as environmentally friendly, the researchers concluded that a dramatic, all-out expansion in the number of turbines could warm the country even more than climate change from burning coal and other fossil fuels, because of the way the spinning blades disturb the layers of warm and cold air in the atmosphere.

Some parts of the central United States are already seeing nights that are up to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) warmer because of nearby wind farms, said study lead author Lee Miller, an environmental scientist at Harvard.
"Any big energy system has an environmental impact," said Harvard engineering and physics professor David Keith, a study co-author. "There is no free lunch. You do wind on a scale big enough ... it'll change things."
ABC NEWS, No free lunch for renewables: More wind power would warm US, By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP SCIENCE WRITER, WASHINGTON — Oct 4, 2018, 5:25 PM ET.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/free-lunch-renewables-wind-power-warm-us-58292940

 

Carbon is life. Embrace it. Free it from it’s bondage so it can be turned into wonderful and tasty plant and animal tissue.

Let’s not let our feeble minded arrogance impede the god of evolution we worship. Think not of yourselves or your children. Such enlightened beings as ourselves ought to value more the evolution of our species. Not limit it to the pathetic past or static present. Welcome selective pressures. Revel in them. Don’t let your “enlightenment” be the ultimate downfall of the species.

 

That is vague enough. Disturbing the air will not do it by itself.

 

The weight of common testimony by the overwhelming preponderance of experts that comports with the common sense awareness that centuries of spewing industrial greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is having the predictable impact on the atmosphere.

 

The problem is there is no overwhelming preponderance of experts. Most of them think similar to me. Yes, man causes global warming. That is inevitable. However, there is massive disagreement on how much and the ability to forecast it and change it. If you find a study which disagrees with that let me know. That study which uses published papers as the basis for a conclusion is misleading and worthless.

 

You have your perspective that undoubtedly comports with the ideological dogma of those who share it.

Every nation on earth - with the conspicuous pariahs of Assad's Syria and Trump's US - has accepted the scientific consensus based upon reliable data. if anyone prefers Trump's explanation that it is a Chinese hoax, that is what they will believe.

If I am told by the vast majority of physicians that smoking is detrimental to my health, but they cannot predict precisely when the adverse consequences will occur nor the exact form they will take, that does not lead me to deny their consensus.

Over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is the cause.

 

Show me the survey that confirms that more than 95% of scientists agree. That is the claim. The problem with using publishing as a basis is that you have limited it to those who are able to get published. Even then, that so called study failed to prove what they claimed.

 

It took hundreds of years to disprove witchcraft. Disproving something is magnitudes harder than proving something -- nigh on impossible.

 

I would assert the following. If folks understand the science, they also understand that the premise of AGW is fundamentally unsupported by the data. Two, that those who believe in scientific consensus don't understand the scientific method, or the idea that science is always about skepticism. Three, they are faithful. Not political, but faithful. And for a sizable majority of those who profess their belief in AGW, it's faith supplanting religious faith that they have determinatively cast off.

The honest answer here is I don't "believe". At least in AGW orthodoxy. I am skeptical because I do understand both the scientific process, the data collected and the methodology used to collect it. And I understand the politics of the use of the orthodoxy in a determined way to otherwise fundamentally transform both politics and economic process.

So, because I recognize that the outcomes of the profession of AGW faith end up becoming tyranny, I voice an opinion that encapsulates the observations that support that perspective. I don't then have to "believe" as a function of faith. I can demonstrate how the actual faith here is misguided and fundamentally unsupportable.

 

See Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

You seem hellbent on denying the science of climatology. Are there other scientific disciplines that you reject?

If your ideology negates science, please explain how it does that.

Do you believe the governments of every nation on earth (excluding pariahs Assad's Syria and Trump's US) are all victims of a vast scientific conspiracy with mysterious, sinister motives?

 

Avoided in what way?