ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"

[GPIDEAL]

Bullshit.

Here's the thread from May 2015 where I made my bet with Frankfooter about the IPCC's predictions: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243530&viewfull=1#post5243530. Anyone who wants to go through that thread will clearly see that I never said the temperature would stop rising. Unlike the global warming alarmists, I don't pretend to be able to predict the future.

I did correctly predict that the IPCC's predictions would remain spectacularly wrong. That was easy to predict, given that the predictions have been so far off the mark.

The reality is the IPCC has no idea how man-made emissions might affect the Earth's temperature, if at all. Its predictions have been completely wrong. There is no evidence that man-made emissions affect the Earth's temperature in any meaningful way, which is what the Nature article actually confirmed.

Fuji loses.

MF-2, you keep on repeating your favourite adjective "spectacularly" in terms of the predictions for climate change being wrong.

Articles have been posted here which do not deny AGW, although some say the predictions may not be as worse as previously predicted, but none give the impression that they are "spectacularly wrong".

The only people that I've heard that say CC does not exist are types like Ted Cruz (during his campaign).

Even NASA says man-made CO2 is an important contributor to CC.

Look at the climactic disasters happening around this planet (and many in the USA). Look at the poles. Look at the receding ice-capped peaks and glaciers. You mean to tell me that there's no scientist who has attributed this phenomenon to something else other than man-made CO2 emissions and deforestation?

Don't you think that if there was another factor or factors that contributed to it in a "meaningful" way, that it would be apparent to a few reputable, independent scientists?

 

[GPIDEAL]

Think you are misreading the evidence.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry says CO2 is not the main driver of climate change
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/19/ener...is-not-the-main-driver-of-climate-change.html

The EPA's webpage on the causes of climate change used to state, "Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change."

CO2 is one of many gasses being emitted as a result of human activity, out of all those gasses, CO2 is the primary gas contributing to climate change. That statement by the EPA does not mean CO2 is the major driver of climate change.

There are many other factors that contribute to climate change, some we know about like deforestation, some we may not know or fully understand yet.

KBear, don't you think the politics of the coal-friendly new administration in the USA has something to do with the change in the wording?

 

[KBear]

KBear, don't you think the politics of the coal-friendly new administration in the USA has something to do with the change in the wording?

The statement quoted was from the Obama era. Note it says, "used to state". The coal-friendly administration deleted the whole statement. Maybe the new administration will replace the statement with something that won't be as easily misinterpreted.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Don't you think that if there was another factor or factors that contributed to it in a "meaningful" way, that it would be apparent to a few reputable, independent scientists?

Actually, the IPCC clearly stated in its last report that there was no proven connection between the weather events you're listing and the changes in the Earth's climate.

 

[KBear]

Don't you think that if there was another factor or factors that contributed to it in a "meaningful" way, that it would be apparent to a few reputable, independent scientists?

Think there are many scientist coming up with many ideas, but CO2 is an easy one for people to understand and latch on to. We all drive cars, burn gas in our homes etc so we can see it, and the government can point to it and tax it.

Very small changes in cloud cover can have an impact on global temperatures. Notice how it's warmer in the late evening when there is cloud cover, cooler in the evening when the sky is clear.

 

[FAST]

Actually, the IPCC clearly stated in its last report that there was no proven connection between the weather events you're listing and the changes in the Earth's climate.

Pepple think there are more tornados in Ontarion,...which is not true,...

As is common in assumptions,...people are now in areas that were not inhabited before,....see the same number of tornados,...so incorrectly assume,...more tornados.

A lot like the self appointed "experts" assuming,...and everybody knows what that does.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Articles have been posted here which do not deny AGW, although some say the predictions may not be as worse as previously predicted, but none give the impression that they are "spectacularly wrong".

I'm afraid you're dead wrong about that last part.

And Fuji's bad situation has just got much, much worse. It's so terrible, in fact, that I almost feel sorry for him.

Check out this peer-reviewed paper that was just published last month and is endorsed by climate justice warriors such as Ben Santer, Ed Hawkins and the notorious Michael E. Mann. It says the models grossly overestimated the projected warming from water vapour feedback (which represents about 95 per cent of the greenhouse gases that are supposed to cause global warming).

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

Regarding the temperature anomalies in the 21st century, the abstract to the paper is quite clear (bolded emphasis added by me): "Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed...".

Got that? The predictions in the models were "substantially" larger than the observed data.

Or, as I have put it, the models have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

It really doesn't matter that some researchers say there has been a minuscule amount of warming in this century, as Fuji states. The key point is there is no evidence of any man-made warming.

As Camille Paglia said, man-made global warming is a "sentimental myth unsubstantiated by evidence."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/camil...genderism-and-islamist-terror/article/2008464

 

[GPIDEAL]

Actually, the IPCC clearly stated in its last report that there was no proven connection between the weather events you're listing and the changes in the Earth's climate.

I find that hard to believe. We are talking not just about 'weather' here but physical changes, including droughts and brush fires.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I'm afraid you're dead wrong about that last part.

And Fuji's bad situation has just got much, much worse. It's so terrible, in fact, that I almost feel sorry for him.

Check out this peer-reviewed paper that was just published last month and is endorsed by climate justice warriors such as Ben Santer, Ed Hawkins and the notorious Michael E. Mann. It says the models grossly overestimated the projected warming from water vapour feedback (which represents about 95 per cent of the greenhouse gases that are supposed to cause global warming).

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

Regarding the temperature anomalies in the 21st century, the abstract to the paper is quite clear (bolded emphasis added by me): "Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed...".

Got that? The predictions in the models were "substantially" larger than the observed data.

Or, as I have put it, the models have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

It really doesn't matter that some researchers say there has been a minuscule amount of warming in this century, as Fuji states. The key point is there is no evidence of any man-made warming.

As Camille Paglia said, man-made global warming is a "sentimental myth unsubstantiated by evidence."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/camil...genderism-and-islamist-terror/article/2008464

I will check this out later as I have a rendezvous, but you quoting Camille Paglia as an authority on this subject seems absurd.

(P.S. And you can keep on repeating about 95% of the greenhouse gases being water vapour, but that has nothing to do with the fact that CO2, while a minor component, has increased by a 1/3 or so in concentration, and that it's own properties affect the greenhouse effect even more so).

 

[GPIDEAL]

Pepple think there are more tornados in Ontarion,...which is not true,...

As is common in assumptions,...people are now in areas that were not inhabited before,....see the same number of tornados,...so incorrectly assume,...more tornados.

A lot like the self appointed "experts" assuming,...and everybody knows what that does.

I'd prefer to know what meteorologists are saying.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Think there are many scientist coming up with many ideas, but CO2 is an easy one for people to understand and latch on to. We all drive cars, burn gas in our homes etc so we can see it, and the government can point to it and tax it.

Very small changes in cloud cover can have an impact on global temperatures. Notice how it's warmer in the late evening when there is cloud cover, cooler in the evening when the sky is clear.

It's not what people can latch on too, but what an overwhelming number of scientists believe (including NASA from that link I provided). Not saying there aren't other factors, but that one seems to be key.

As to cloud cover, is there more now than before, or is that a general observation from time immemorial?

 

[GPIDEAL]

The statement quoted was from the Obama era. Note it says, "used to state". The coal-friendly administration deleted the whole statement. Maybe the new administration will replace the statement with something that won't be as easily misinterpreted.

Which proves my point, doesn't it? Under Obama, the EPA webpage stated that CO2 IS the primary greenhouse gas that contributes to CC.

The CNBC link that says CO2 is NOT a main driver is a current one, ergo Trump era pronouncement.

 

[FAST]

I'd prefer to know what meteorologists are saying.

They agree with me on the subject of tornados in Ont..

 

[GPIDEAL]

@ FAST & FUJI on peer review.

I recently purchased a special edition of TIME magazine about Albert Einstein and noted that after other scientists had reviewed his work, they accepted his theories which catapulted him to fame. Even before modern technologies proved he was right, early scientists even saw the proof in the pudding, when they observed that the gravity of the sun bent its rays by viewing the corona during a solar eclipse.

 

[GPIDEAL]

They agree with me on the subject of tornados in Ont..

I'm not concerned about eye-witness reports. What about the incidence of tornadoes in Ontario from a meteorological standpoint?

 

[basketcase]

I am not incorrect, when Columbus sailed west, it was widely believed the world was flat, ...

I don't even know if it was widely believed. Anyone who took the time to get educated knew what had been previously discovered. Of course the vast majority is Europe were too busy drying to eke out an existence to even think about the shape of the world.

Similarly, anyone who takes the time to get educated on climate change will see that Human CO2 is a major factor.

And yes, their conclusion is absolutely the correct one based on the evidence available. The fact that you have to keep quoting the 1973 quantum mechanics guy instead of the great many other experts shows that your instinctual conclusion is not based in evidence.

 

[basketcase]

Lets be clear
I do not reject the possibility that human produced CO2 may be a major driver of current climactic changes
What I reject is this conclusion is absolute and true with 100% confidence.
Scientific theory is never that exact

Based on the evidence currently available it is the correct conclusion. Happy?

Arguing against the scientific conclusions because they might discover something in the future is so far from scientific method as to be laughable.

 

[basketcase]

...
CO2 is one of many gasses being emitted as a result of human activity, out of all those gasses, CO2 is the primary gas contributing to climate change. That statement by the EPA does not mean CO2 is the major driver of climate change.....

Wow. What wonderfully warped doublespeak.

And I thought we were talking about science and evidence, not the opinion of some political hack appointee who couldn't even remember what departments he wanted to get rid of.

 

[basketcase]

...
Check out this peer-reviewed paper that was just published last month and is endorsed by climate justice warriors such as Ben Santer, Ed Hawkins and the notorious Michael E. Mann. It says the models grossly overestimated the projected warming from water vapour feedback (which represents about 95 per cent of the greenhouse gases that are supposed to cause global warming).
...

And like every other article the deniers post, nowhere does it even hint that CO2 doesn't play a major role. At best it just means that the changes won't be as rapid as some thought.

 

[JohnLarue]

Arguing against the scientific conclusions because they might discover something in the future is so far from scientific method as to be laughable.

Arguing for a scientific conclusion is because it is the one which is currently popular is not even laughable. That is just downright sad, particularly if you wish to use it to cultivate change in peoples behaviours

I never mentioned waiting for a future explanation
I offered several viable explanations which could also possibly be significant contributors to changes in climate

Is your conviction so strong that you just dismiss those out of hand?
if so how in the world can you speak of scientific method?