What is the AGW Scientific Consensus?

I wish! Crichton is a much better Science Fiction writer.

I got a short story published once in my High School Newspaper, though....

 

Plus, it didn't happen.

 

Point being that his training as an MD comprised hundreds of hours of hard science, math, investigation and producing medical analysis. All skills easily transferable to climatology; particularly the part that works with mathematical analysis. scientific method, and analysis.

 

No. You really don't. The Air Force sent me to a University for a year for meteorology training plus I took other correspondence course plus I analyzed weather patterns for twenty years. You don't get that kind of experience watching a TV weatherman. I recognize many of the patterns they are blaming on AGW as being just normal weather situations.

 

They are all interactive. One does not control the other.

 

Hah! Hilarious!

Obviously NOT transferable to climatology! But you did manage to write the runner up for most absurd post of the week. And the competition this week was tough!

BTW, MDs are not scientists. They're practitioners! Except Crichton never actually practiced medicine... so I don't know if you could even call him that.

 

It's a pity that climatologists don't know anything about weather situations.

 

Talk about hilarious, your entire post is ignorant twaddle. Whether he practiced medicine or not he was trained in a highly scientific, mathematical and logical field.

 

Like most people with a specialty, they sometimes tend to ignore the obvious.

 

Crichton was a Harvard MD and a peer-reviewed published researcher.
Your claims are false.

 

Sure. Whatever you say . . . even if it counters what a very large majority of scientists involved in studying the earth's climate say otherwise.



Climate science involves dozens of disciplines, from geology to marine biology. It involves tens of thousands of scientists. And before you go there, no, governments don't pay for much of it.

https://meansandmatters.bankofthewe...n/who-funds-the-fight-against-climate-change/

Our tax dollars are used for research grants, but that's not their primary source of income.

 

Yes, Mr. Expert

 

Feel free to restart a thread proposing the idea that "Solar activity and not AGW is responsible for recent warming" any time and we can test your confidence.

 

AGW science is full of politics. The scientific method was abandoned, if it was still followed nobody would be saying “the science is settled”.

 

That human-produced CO2 is causing global warming is known with a high certainty & confirmed by scientific observations. Science is rarely 100% settled.

Of course that doesn't stop people saying that it might be.

 

No that’s not known with a high degree of certainty. For example, when the Kyoto Accords were up for approval it was found that if the USA did them perfectly the change in CO2 and other gas emissions would be within the margin of error of the measurement. And if the world implemented the Accords the impact on the world would barely be measurable. That means humans have a small impact on climate.

And the retort “it’s settled science” is the first bleat uttered by AGW fanatics when questioned.

It’s hugely political and it was from day 1 when it was invented. I remember in the 1970s when scientists said global cooling was the problem, it was taught in my HS science class. I guess freezing didn’t scare people into buying socialism so burning up was tried.

 

I appreciate that. A lot of people resent being corrected.

 

It was sarcasm. It's contrary to the articles.

You're just making stuff up.

 

That is simply wrong. Water vapor very much does control the earth's temperature and temperature exerts control on water vapor. You cannot isolate one from the other.

This is especially true in regards to vertical motion in the atmosphere.

 

I'm uninterested in funding.

“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." [In response to the book Hundred Authors Against Einstein]

― Albert Einstein

 

Per Shaviv, solar activity was responsible for approximately half of 20th century warming. I've posted that many times. As a consequence, climate sensitivity is quite low and the Paris climate target for 2100 will be achieved without changing anything.

 

You have a vivid imagination.

 

You maintained that "Solar activity and not AGW is responsible for recent warming", which is demonstrably false. Nice thread revisionism and straw man.

 

Easy to say when the thread has miraculously disappeared. Someone must have wanted to hide the contents.

 

I have engaged in this multiple times and have NEVER gotten a response from the left.
1. We cannot have has a much carbon in the atmosphere as there was in the past. We can only return some of the carbon that was taken from the atmosphere over millions of year.
2. We know the absolute cap of global warming, 72 degrees F (15 above our current temp). This was the top temperature of the Cambrian when all of the CO2 that is currently in the ground was in the atmosphere.
3. We know that the greatest explosion of life in earth's history occurred during the Cambrian. At no other era in earth's history has life come even close to replicating that explosion.
4. We know that the climate can only cool or warm. We know that the greatest contractions of life ALL occurred under global cooling events WITHOUT EXCEPTION. All expansions of life occurred during global warming events WITHOUT EXCEPTION. We have 3.5 billion years of fossil record to find the exception but it does not exist.
5. We know that the planet is now greening at a faster rate than at any time in human history. This has been matched with crop yields that increased at a rate commensurate with the warming planet and CO2 levels.

Given this indisputable data, justify impoverishing the poorer half of America for the enrichment of the 0.0001% for climate policy that will do absolutely nothing to decrease the world wide contribution to atmospheric carbon. I expect crickets which is ALL I have ever gotten from progressives on this forum.