The debate isn't about the temperature. It is about the politics involved in what should or should not be done about it.
The real question is whether they even know enough to be able to lie about it. Grant money, job security and/or notoriety.
This is total bull. First of all, we would be studying climate regardless of warming. Science gives its highest rewards of fame to those who prove significant ideas to be false. Einstein became famous by trashing much of physics that came before him - and, before people became fullly aware of the power of his ideas. We didn't have nuclear weapons, GPS, satellites, gravitational wave detectors, etc., at that time. Publishing false papers is how scientists lose their entire careers. Climate is complex and covers multiple disciplines as well as the full range of environments from the sun to deep oceans. Trying to fake results consistent across climatology would be monumentally difficullt and would surely be found out.
The data has been manipulated. The science is never settled nor should it be. No body of study has ever been more wrong more often than science. Yesterday's science fact is today's science fiction.
False. There is no conspiracy to fraudulently manipulate data. In fact, I'm not aware of even a single substantiated claim of fraud from a scientist who has published in a peer review journal and whose publication provides evidence that supports AGW. Yes, I'm aware of the dozens of claims by deniers, but none of them have been substantiated. And in fact, most (all?) of them have proven to be false. On the flip side I do know of substantiated claims of actual fraud on the part of scientists that oppose AGW. For example, Soon and Baliunas conspired with the editors of a journal to publish fraudulent research in 2003. The con was discovered when nearly all of the authors that Soon and Baliunas cited came forward and said their works had been grossly misrepresented and misinterpreted. The fact that CO2 produces a positive radiative forcing on the climate system absolutely is settled science. It is grounded in molecular physics, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics. It is further supported by evidence from nearly all disciplines of science. What is not settled is how sensitive the climate system is to a pulse of CO2. It could be a little or it could be a lot. That's why the IPCC publishes a range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2. Note that the troposphere has already warmed by 1.0C and we're not even 50% of the way to a doubling of CO2 yet so it is very unlikely that the lower bound of 1.5C will be correct. Absolutely false. While it is true that science does not make perfect predictions the predictions they have made in regards to the climate system are actually quite good. Contrast this with denier predictions. They are so bad in almost every respect that they can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct. No surprise really since most of these predictions are based on made up assumptions and violations of the laws of physics.
yup...the Md that began the anti-vaccine trend claiming vaccines caused autism, lost his license to practice because he falsified the data. it's one thing to be wrong, quite another to fraudulently manipulate data, that'll cost a scientist/researcher their jobs and careers
china has a social tradition going a couple thousand years...the emperor always had special advisors on everything, the emperor relied on the best info possible to make decisions bringing incorrect info wasn't a wise career move in Imperial China... and nothing has changed with todays politcal emperor...they rely on the best expert information to base their plans on, not opinions from the talking heads of Faux news....China a fact based society it's scientist tell the leadership Co2 is causing agw and there is danger then they accept it and make short and long term plans on how to deal with it...
Glad to see they're handling it so well. Top 5 most polluting countries China (30%) The world's most populated country has an enormous export market, which has seen its industry grow to become a serious danger to the planet. ... United States (15%) The world's biggest industrial and commercial power. ... India (7%) ... Russia (5%) ... Japan (4%)
I can see you're not into giving deep thought into topics top countries green energy investment China: $102.9 billion. United States: $44.1 billion. ... Japan: $36.2 billion. ... United Kingdom: $22.2 billion. ... India: $10.2 billion. ...
And the only thing you're interested in is being insulting. 102 billion is a lot of money to spend without any results. They probably buy carbon credits from themselves to show the world how green they are. They learned that from Al Gore.
ideologues aren't capable of separating fact from fantasy, zero ability to reason or see past the end of their nose...
Yes Another difference between the us and china is that if warming happens in the us for what ever reason.... the impacts seem debatable and not so catastrophic. But china would have to consider the long term consequences of melting of Himalayan glaciers and ice packs In the near term the melting would result in significant flooding of both cities and farmland. In the long term china relies upon Himalayan ice melt to provide a constant water supply through the summer. So without the ice, they would have too much water in the spring, and not enough in the summer
as posted there would be short term and long term problems...as with Imperial china, one party china can and does have long term projects 25, 50, 100yr plans they're not constrained to 4 yr election plans...they're actively taking on the pollution and climate issues...what the typical ideologue climate denier doesn't take into count is enormous size of china and it's infrastructure development...1.3 billion people and many do not have a fraction of the western benefits that the typical denier has...deniers expect china to halt it's progress why they have all the benefits modern technology gives them, cars in every home, reliable electricity and heat...
Cars in every home? I don't expect China to halt it's progress as the worlds biggest polluter. All hail China.
OK, inside science that's true. I get what you mean. However, outside of science, there is a serious and continuing problem that requires debate to continue. Trump clearly does not accept climate science and is running an administration that has worked to prevent the communication of scientific evidence, has removed us from the Paris accords process, has relaxed control of carbon emissions to promote coal use, and has made strong negative statements concerning climatology in general and warming in specific. Republicans in congress have been perfectly fine with that. I don't think we can say the debate is over until there actually is a common understanding that is in line with science and accepted by our government.
China has the largest number of clean energy patents, the largest clean energy technology production, the largest clean energy technology exports, and the most serious clean energy installation program. They have 40% of the clean energy market and are growing at a rapid rate, while the US at #2 has analysts projecting the US falling behind even farther. India has surpassed the EU and is growing rapidly. China has huge air pollution problems in large metro areas, making clean energy a requirement simply for life, not just the future of earth's climate.
China is going all in on electric cars, 9 manufacturers with a target of sales 1million electric cars sold per year by 2020...china is just leaving every other country behind they will be the dominant economic power very soon while the west struggles to break away from carbon fuels ...it's been predicted for a long time the new green economy is where wealth will be built and China is determined to get there first...
