Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Show me the document reading man is primarily responsible for climate change and the list of 97% of scientist in the world that have signed it. Until then you are just parroting AGW myth and propoganda.

 

The truth is, you know next to nothing about what you’re saying. You deniers just throw crapolla against the wall till something sticks......it never does.

 

The truth is their is no document stating man is primarily responsible for climate change that 97% of scientist have signed.

 

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

 

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

 

Golly....then climate change is obviously fake news.

 

There's the document where's the signatures of 97% of scientist in the world?

 

Golly.... Then claims of 97% scientific concensus is obviously fake news.

 

Over 120, 000 members......

 

Out of millions of scientist. Thanks for proving my point about the 97% lie.

 

Ayup....I doubt anything in science has a 97% consensus....that's kinda the point.

 

Then we agree that that 97% number so often used as evidence is complete BS and is nothing but an attempt to stop debate.

 

You really don’t understand institutions.
Not only do the members sign on to the general findings of their organization, but they pay dues.

 

As I did not say that at all....NO we do not agree. Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested (the processes of the scientific method ) because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science. Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

 

Still trying to dodge the fact that there is no document stating man is primarily responsible for climate change that 97% of scientist have signed.

 

No institution ANYWHERE contains 97% of scientists.

 

We do agree but you just can't see it. Scientist have stopped arguing over the fact that we have dumped huge amounts of C02 into the atmosphere and that is likely a factor in one of the multitude of factors that effect climate. It's a very far stretch from that to the supposed concensus that man is the primary factor in climate change. That's a very big leap that requires documentary evidence.

 

I have not noted anyone saying human contributions are THE PRIMARY cause of climate change, I have seen that CO2 is A primary cause however. Most scientists deal in complexity and well understand how many interactions are involved in our atmosphere and temperature. It is also however, well understood and documented that an increase in Carbon Dioxide will increase temperatures in any system. Much of the focus has shifted to methane release as of late as CO2 increase has been established and accepted as fact.....the Consensus is no longer relevant.
The increased temperatures in our atmosphere have tipped the balance to melting ices which change ocean albedo as well as releasing methane from permafrost and ocean sediments....this Methane makes CO2 feel like an ice cube

 

JC is not in the consensus on that point. The consensus is that human activity accounts for > 90% of the warming. JC's position is that humans account for about 50%.

 

IPCC's AR5 chapter 8 is unequivocal regarding that humans are primarily responsible.

 

Is it signed by 97% of scientist in the world!

 

No it's not. My apologies. I see now that was your point.

 

There is a consensus, it is not 97% and I am unsure where that number even came from, regardless it is not relevant to the issue.

In the scientific community few dispute the effects of CO2 or the contributions human fossil fuel use has had on our planet and atmosphere. It seems to me you are using and fixating on some pointless 97% thingy to avoid discussing and facing the actual topic and situation. I recommend you ignore it all and sequester into your survival bunker while everyone else faces reality.

 

The 97% comes from the Cook 2013 study. It simply states that 97% of the publications in peer reviewed journals which declare a position on climate change endorsed AGW. 11944 abstracts were analyzed. 66.4% did not express a position either way. 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were uncertain of the cause of warming. So when people claim that "97% of scientists agree" they are misrepresenting the study because the study was not author focused, but publication focused instead. It's also misrepresented because the 97% figure is after the no-position publication were excluded from consideration. However, that in no way undermines the fact that those endorsing AGW far outnumber those that reject it.