Little ice age refresher course

A much shorter list contains the names of those scientists who believe that humans are responsible for all the global warming and that human caused global warming will be catastrophic.

 

Who is 'looking at data'? Certainly not the global warming hystericalists.. they only BELIEVE that those who concluded things about some made up data are as pure as the driven snow.. err. warm rain.

150 years of data? That would be an improvement, but there is not even that. There are too many variables in the temperature measurements, too much close to human industry, power plants, or other heat sources to deliberately get a false reading.

No, the AGW scam is based on lies & political manipulation, & they target the low information, easily duped youth, to blubber in front of cameras how they want seals to have homes, or cry about penguins & koala bears. They are just propagandists, with a lie to manipulate & control the working man, & fleece him of his labors. This is Fake Science, based on an agenda. The data is contrived. The proponents want grant money & control. The predictions have ALWAYS been wrong. It is an insult to any scientifically minded person to call their arguments, 'science'. But we have the same old deluded fools singing the same alarmist song, with hordes of useful idiots to champion their Fake Science cause.

 

That's a ridiculous request, obviously.

However, the following link shows studies of the scientific population, of refereed papers published as well as endorsements of numerous scientific organizations related to climatology from here in America and from 80 nations of the world concerting the position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

I agree it's a rediculous request! So, how can a percentage be attached?

 

You can't make this up. From the link above: "97% of climate papers stating a position on human caused global warming agree: global warming is happening and we (humans) are the cause"

 

Yes, political manipulation. But the political manipulation is being done by politicians and not by scientist. And they are suckering in the uneducated masses.

 

What's wrong with that?

When there is a disputed issue, there will be papers on both sides.

Plus, that is only one of the several methods used to confirm the broad consensus on climate change.


Beyond that, let's remember that there is NO EXCUSE for either expecting or waiting for unanimity.

Science does not produce that. And, politics doesn't require it. In fact, our political process is based on NEVER having proof on ANY topic.

 

Now you are catching on. No proof needed.

 

All papers stating that humans cause nights to be darker agree: night darkening is happening and humans are the cause.

 

The 97% consensus claim is a baldfaced lie debunked more times than Madonna has gone down.

But surely I can count on your support for Trump's carbon tax plan with the border adjustment tax for china and other nations that turn their countries into filthy pig pens in order to fill the world with cheap consumer goods?

 

Natural sciences (like climatology) do not provide proof. Math does, but natural sciences do not.

What science CAN provide is theory that has withstood attempts to be refuted, etc. Since gives its highest rewards to those who overturn theory - Newton, Einstein, Darwin, etc. We know the names of those who played significant roles in overturning theory. Those who confirm theory? Nobody knows who they are for very long. So, even today science works to refute Einstein and every other theory that exists - the point being that results are not just accepted. Supporting work is replicated, review is extensive before publishing, those who publish stuff that turns out to be wrong by purpose or accident are not long suffered.


As people interested in public policy we have to be able to look at what science provides and allow that to affect our public policy decision making process.

Economics is the same way. There are reasonably well understood theories on how economies behave, and we need to consider theories when we make decisions that impact economics - TARP, trade deals, minimum wage, monetary policy, etc., etc.

NONE of these have anything like proof. Yet, we make policy decisions on the basis of how we think these various parameters affect our economy along with factors we see in our economy and don't like - unemployment statistics, etc. Even these statistics are open to interpretation - we may know what percent is unemployed, but we don't necessarily know why.


So, how the heck many climatologists need to agree before we start making public policy related to climate change???

We know for CERTAIN that we can't wait for 100% agreement.

What if we have 75% agreement?

- - - Updated - - -

The appropriate response to stuff like this is:

Cite please.

 

First paragraph:

Then cite it.

Second paragraph:

I don't know about any Trump carbon tax plan.

 

Maybe you don't understand that CO2 centric AGW is not even a theory but an hypothesis based on computer models, not on observed science. As it stands, the models overestimate warming by as much as 300%. Political decisions are based on flawed models.

 

There is 97% agreement that humans contribute to global warming but no consensus on what percentage of global warming is caused by humans. The climate sensitivity to CO2 of 1 deg C is a correlation.

Circular logic.

- - - Updated - - -

And the precautionary principle.

 

Cite please.

 

It's called science. Do you know what makes a theory a theory?

 

What does "1 deg C" mean?

That is, usually one has to specify a time period and an amount of CO2 - not just a number of degrees.

I like the following, because it shows watts per square meter for sources of warming, along with error bars, including solar variance, factors that cool, etc.

Then we can look at global mean surface temperature from places such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

 

You claimed:
"As it stands, the models overestimate warming by as much as 300%. "

I asked for a cite.

 

All of our best discoveries came from those that disagreed with 90% of the scientists on the planet.

 

Just because you disagree doesn't make you right. And the discoveries usually come from scientists not laymen.

 

How can someone argue global warming if they don't understand the definition of the "climate sensitivity of CO2" ?? Look it up.

- - - Updated - - -

IPCC "consensus" based on models. Do some homework.

 

I didn't say I was right.

But what I said was correct, like it or not.

 

No, I don't see anything supporting this idea of warming models being 300% wrong.

Please cite.

 

So you admit the 90% claim is rubbish. If you cannot provide a list, even a link to a list, because of its enormity then how could someone determine that "90% of scientists" agree with AGW?

Anyway, the claim is usually 97%, as created by the Cook paper. That paper has been so thoroughly debunked that its a joke.

 

If you are going to attempt to argue global warming at least be familiar with the most important metric. Please do your homework.