The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

Looks like I followed the routine without realizing it

Were both right

Shows my age

 

In Back to the Future, Biff used "screen door on a battleship" and it was in the wrong context. That's why I used it

 

Yeah, you got it... LOL! I'm a huge fan...

 

Ahh maybe the title of the thread should read

9 out of 10 scientist on the faculties of the Big Ten universities in the US who beg for government grants assert man is responsible for climate change in order to keep receiving their grants.

"We surveyed the biophysical science faculty of the Big Ten universities in the US"

 

But not for prehistoric climate change, obviously. What do 9/10 scientists think caused prehistoric climate change, or even historic climate change on our sister planets?

 

Why, man of course. Don't you know how powerful we are?

 

[video=youtube;sz6IpmmYSXA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz6IpmmYSXA[/video]

 

You set up the theological comparison and then claim I am making a theological arguement. Comparing science with philosophy is your error. Clearly not mine

My arguement is that it is logical to listen to experts in the science of global warming. And the experts overwhelmingly believe man is contributing significantly. If you want to deny the overwhelming concensus of experts that is certainly your fight but to pretend that such a denial is based on anything other than wishful thinking is not logical

 

No, consensus is statistics.

And the APS statement was basically an arguement over the use of the word " inevitable" not over whether or not AGW is real. There was a couple of members that thought man's contribution was not major but this was a tiny, tiny, minority.

 

Even if man-made global warming is real, there's nothing we can do about it. I'm not giving up air conditioning in Texas in July, and I'm sure Canadians aren't going to give up heating their homes in January.

 

Out of hundreds of thousands of what? Just post a single scientific organization that has taken the position that AGW is not real. Just one.

That would actually be a tiny step in exposing my do do and I bet you can't even do that.

 

A bad attempt at diversion. The discussion is about whether man is contributing to global warming not about whether or not climate also changes in natural cycles.

 

97% of those organizations don't have anything to do with climate change science, so what's your point other than Appeal to Authority fallacy?

 

Well even accepting you imaginary 3% number you still can't find a single organization of climate experts that supports your position. So even given your imaginary criteria your position that AGW doesn't exist loses.

Actually am not sure you can even find a single climate scientist still working in the field that supports your position.

 

Consensus is NOT science. In the case of GW that consensus is generated by politics. Most anything connected with politics is a lie.

 

Well then, you haven't a clue either what my position is or what other scientists have written about this.

 

Water, water everywhere...

'Half a million flee homes' as Sri Lanka grapples with deadly floods, landslides
May 21, 2016 - Severe flooding in Sri Lanka has forced half a million people to flee their homes across the island nation, officials say, as the death toll from days of torrential rain and landslides rose to more than 60.

​

 

Clueless? My goodness, Hoosier - you've been proven so often wrong here, that it's like a running joke (if anybody wants to look). If climate change real? Sure, just turn on your TV any day. Are we causing a lot of the change? Sure. What happens if we don't change? Bad freakin' news. Now - start working on a solution.

 

He tries really hard though, lol. A real life, new age flat earther, haha!!

 

Even granted your 97% that still leaves every organization that you call involved in climate science supporting global warming.

- - - Updated - - -

What other scientists have written about this? You aren't going to use the Appeal to Authority Fallacy now are you. Consistancy of thought isn't one of your strong points, is it.

 

Which "lie" was that? The only reason that you think it's a scam is because you're terrified it's a 'liberal' plot to separate you from your cash! Tell me, how much has the Montreal Protocol, enacted to counter one of the worst threats to climate we have seen (ratified by Ronald Reagan and the entire UN membership), negatively affected your bank account? I'm sure you must know otherwise you wouldn't have posted what you did. So, ballpark?

http://theconversation.com/saving-the-ozone-layer-why-the-montreal-protocol-worked-9249
http://www.theozonehole.com/climate.htm

 

You must still believe in all those failed predictions or fall for media hype.

 

Science changes, Hooter - it never stays the same. Any predictions made 25-30 years ago may or may not be right, depending on the information available at the time. So what? Put on your big boy pants and look at where we are now and where we have to go and then move from there forward. We don't to forward by looking back - that's for Repubs who want to return to those thrilling days or yesteryear that never were and never will be.

 

Polar bears aren't going extinct. http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec12/polar_bears.asp

Islands in the Pacific are not disappearing under rising sea levels, to any appreciable degree. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...h-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

California and New York will not be inundated by rising sea levels. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Polar ice caps are not losing mass. They are gaining, actually. http://www.ibtimes.com/are-polar-ic...dy-shows-mass-gains-are-bigger-losses-2165062

I'll tell you why your "so what...science was wrong, get over it " admission is so scurrilous. Because first of all, it absolves a politically driven scientific
campaign to frighten people into an unnecessary and horribly expensive course of action based on lies and gross exaggerations.
Ooops...we got things wrong. Too bad. Oh well. (*)(*)(*)(*) happens.

If we had followed the "scientific consensus" of twenty years ago we would all be paying trillions of dollars to the UN and other global climate governance bodies to solve a "problem" that does not exist to anywhere near the extent to which
it has been cynically hyped. And you fell for it all.

Secondly, the people who got it all wrong then are still around and still singing their siren's song of destruction and woe today. We are still seeing plans
for control over Western developed nations, primarily, that call for crippling carbon taxes and treaties and protocols that call for surrender of national sovereignty
to unelected unaccountable governing bodies to fight a global pox that cannot even justify itself.

And thirdly, real science is predicting a drop in the sun's activities in just fifteen years plunging the earth back into a "mini ice age" not seen since the 17th century, thanks to the Maunder Minimum. http://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-in-the-next-15-years

The very real prospect of a much colder planet will finally drive a stake through the heart of a politicized scheme to take, metaphorically speaking, a brief pan fire in your kitchen and try to frighten people their house will burn to the ground if all their money and control of their own home isn't ceded to the government.
I don't doubt science has shown there is such a thing as global warming. But that fact in and of itself has been turned into a global hysteria so the real, rational voices of scientists like Bjorn Lomborg (http://www.lomborg.com/) have been drowned out by greedy schemers (Al Gore and friends) and useful idiots who
have taken the hysteria to heart and magnified it a thousand fold until it has become a mania completely removed from all reality and truth.

You've been taken for a ride. Look around and see for yourself.

 

A few years ago it was a "scientific" consensus that eggs are bad for human health. Not so today.

You see, meteorology and dietology are not hard sciences (if sciences at all). They cannot give definitive answers, at least today. They cannot make experiments, they do not have any reliable models, they just observe outcomes and try to make nicely sounding conclusions. Today working to "confirm" global warming is politically correct and very well paying jog for scientists (because of political correctness "global warmists" are getting much juicier grants than "global non-warmists").