Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

" 97% of scientist agree " is the battle cry of the alarmist and it is they that attempt to shut down the debate with this "the science is settled" argument. As for sequestering into your survival bunkers that is what the alarmist like yourself should do. Earth's climate is dynamic and ever changing. It's adapt or perish. It always has been and it always will be and if you can't face that reality you do indeed need to climb into your shelter. Personally I'm enjoying and glad to be alive in this brief and pleasant warm era on a planet where an ice age is more the norm.

 

I agree with all but your last editorial sentence. AGW is based on the premise that man is primarily responsible for climate change and the fact that most people including myself acknowledge the fact that man's C02 contribution plays some role in climate is a far cry from saying we endorse the AGW hypothesis.

 

Too bad you weren't around to set Einstein straight on all that, huh?

So how many scientists do you imagine dispute the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or the laws of thermodynamics, or innumerable other propositions that are so well tested as to be employed in industry?

 

How utterly rediculous and uninformed. There are not millions of scientists in the US. Maybe you don’t know what the AAAS stands for. Scientists work in teams and institutions.
In climate change alone, there are dozens of different disaplines that contribute to a consensus. You can tell you deniers. You’re only interested in the opinions of some individuals and not the findings among thousands of institutions, ALL OF WHICH ARE IN GENERAL AGREEMENT. Each institution represents the work of thousands of scientists over a lifetime on this project. I don’t want to be offensive, but you guys are as ignorant as Trump himself.

 

Likely a vast majority...maybe even 97%.

 

No, it's another fallacy of yours, your assumption there that if CO2 isn't the only factor, then it's not a significant factor at all. You repeated the fallacy with your dumb claim about Mars. The people who understand science and logic don't make such a basic errors. You'd flunk a middle school science class.

Over the last million years, climate matches CO2 almost perfectly. If CO2 had as little effect as you claim, that couldn't have happened. It did, so you're clearly wrong.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change



And you're wrong about how much CO2 lags climate, and the implications of it. The science indicates CO2 matches temperature very closely, only lagging slightly, or even possibly leading. The Milankovitch cycles provide the initial kick that ends ice ages, but once the kick is made, CO2 takes over as the primary driver. It's like coasting my car over a hill. Gravity didn't accelerate my car initially, but once I'm over the crest, gravity takes over as the primary force.

That's because you've defined your position to be unfalsifiable, which places it in the category of pseudoscience or religion. There is literally no data that you would accept as disproof of your theory. In direct contrast, the theory of the rational people could conceivably be disproved by many different types of hard data. That's because it's real science.

Conspiracy theories like that are the last resort of the factually challenged. While such conspiracy theories play well with religious cultists, we on the rational side know the actual facts, so we know with 100% certainty that you're peddling fraud. Screaming the same fraud multiple times and at higher volume won't change that.

 

Here's hoping you just misunderstood the question.

 

Oh so now the story changes and all the scientist in America agree not all the scientist period. LOL

 

Well, at least you laugh at your own feeble jokes.

 

About the same number that sided with Monsanto in the production of poisonous vegetation contro. Individuals can be bought off, institutions like NASA and Yale, no so in everyone but a one track Humper’s mind. Following the Humper logic is impossible. It changes mid sentence.
.

 

I laugh at the AGW cult who's positions change like the weather. Good pun huh. Now I'm laughing at my own joke.

 

But our positions don't change. What remains constant is the way you misrepresent our positions. That only makes you look bad, and confirms the perception that deniers are intellectual cowards. If you could argue against what we actually say, you wouldn't have to make up phony strawmen to argue against.

Let's do what you hate most, and discuss actual issues. Your last post that wasn't just strawman bashing was #653, so let's go back to that. That post was a bad logical fallacy on your part. You pointed out that volcanoes and a changing sun can effect climate. Okay, good. You then failed at logic and concluded how that meant CO2 didn't have a significant effect on climate. Your conclusion did not follow in any way from your premise, so your conclusion was invalid. The fact that climate changed naturally in the past does not mean humans are incapable of changing climate.

 

A cult ?
“A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.”
By definition, religions are cults. Still waiting for you nimrods to name one accredited institute of higher learning that agrees with you. Your only response in the past has been, >you’re against education. < That explains everything.

 

I never said C02 has no impact on climate but I did say it's only one of many things that effect climate and far from the primary driver as the cult would have us believe.

 

Just as the climate is far more complex than carbon freaks think it is so is the word cult that describes them so perfectly.

Cult Definition
Let’s first look at the definition of the term ‘cult’ as provided by a dictionary:

1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
– Source: Merriam-Webster dictionary 1

 

You give zero evidence to back up that cult belief.

You never give any evidence to back up any of your cult beliefs. You "feel" they're right, and that settles it in your mind.

That's how we know you're the cultist and we're not. You have nothing but religious faith to support your beliefs. In stark contrast, our beliefs are always backed up with hard data, making them the opposite of religious faith. You're the equivalent of a flat-earther declaring how all the round-earthers are cultists.

 

Thank you for posting this. It shows very clearly the CONSTANT equivocation fallacy in which you engage and why you are such an intellectually dishonest poster. You point to definition 5a of a word and say "See? This word can mean that." ... when very clearly, when you use the word, you are meaning def 1 and 2.

Largely, that can summarize this entire thread with words like "Toxic" and "Pollution". Your entire OP is based on an equivocation fallacy.

 

The AGW hypothesis fails real world test constantly but you make excuses, move the goal post and change your story to prop it up. That's what a cult does.

 

Worth repeating as it defines the true believers so nicely.

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

 

We know the science, hence we know with 100% certainty that you're lying there, in exactly the same way that we know with 100% that flat-earthers are lying.

And again, flat-earthers make the same claims about how everyone else is the real cultist. All cultists are alike in that way. There's a lot of overlap between deniers, flat earthers, antivaxxers, antinukers, moon landing hoaxers, birthers, grassyknollers, and all kinds of cults. The same lack of common sense and herd mentality that gets people to fall for a conspiracy theory like denialism causes them to fall for a wide array of conspiracy theories.

 

The bright side being that none of these folks will take any steps to prepare and may very well become extinct.

 

I suggest you simply ignore the banter and perhaps buy a beach house in Florida, you have nothing to worry about so have at it.

 

Repeat it all you like ... that doesn't make it correct. The sense of this definition of "cult" is as in a "cult movie". The sense in which you use the term is as 1 and 2 above. But, of course, you already know this.

It's ok. Intellectual honesty is difficult. I'm sure painting someone as a "true believer" or "cultist" makes it easier to disregard their actual arguments.

 

No, that's just another silly strawman you made up.

The difference is that cell phones work. Medical science cures and prevents disease. AGW screaming hasn't made one accurate prediction yet.

No, it's a hypothesis because its validity has not been established by RESULTS, just by "endorsements."

Sounds right.

That makes me even more skeptical.

 

Not surprisingly, that does not say what you claim it says, and certainly has not been endorsed by 97% of scientists or climate scientists.