ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"

[basketcase]

?? Had one tried to speak of evolution in 15th century Spain, one would have been burnt at the stake....

We were talking about your misconception that people didn't know the world was round before Columbus.

And no, what you call "reasonable" explanations have been found to be lacking based on currently available evidence.

Is a mind which is capable of advancing quantum physics, not qualified to examine the science of climate change?

You might not be aware but to develop a reputation as a leader in an academic field takes a decade or two of work. And yes, if you take a look at academics, their is a reason why the brightest stars make their mark while young. It has a lot to do with neural plasticity. And yes, he may be well spoken but as I said before, so are con men.

And you're right. I'm not an expert. I do have the sense to realize that the vast majority of those who are see human produced CO2 as a major factor in climactic changes. Unlike you' I'm not going to sit and hope that some imaginary future evidence will contradict what is the best current conclusion.

 

[basketcase]

Conclusions based on the best evidence available are not absolute
They are at best an estimate....

Not at all. They are absolutely the best conclusion based on the evidence available. Again you are simply hoping that some evidence could be found to validate your preconceived ideas.

 

[basketcase]

In case you've forgotten, you have spent the past few years insisting the AGW models got it right...

Based on the graphs of the models they did a good job. If the best you can do to deny AGW is to point to a scientific study that realized they overemphasized a feedback loop then you really are a hopeless case.

While you are spending your time trying to prove science wrong, scientists are using new evidence to further refine those models.

 

[basketcase]

Those who are anti science are folks like you who buy into this AGW crap and in turn support the politicization of science and the bastardization of the scientific method.

It is amusing that a guy who thinks scientists are simply promoting a conspiracy claims others are anti-science. You sound like Trumps lawyer claiming he didn't just say Trump was under investigation. You can't claim scientists are a fraud and also claim to back science.

 

[JohnLarue]

And no, what you call "reasonable" explanations have been found to be lacking based on currently available evidence.

Found to be lacking?
You do not know if the earths orbit may have sufficient variability to impact the planets climate, so you conclude with absolute certainty that Climate Change is man made?
You do not know if the is any variability in the radiation from the sun which could impact the planets climate, so you conclude with absolute certainty that Climate Change is man made?


Given the fact that earths climate has undergone multiple changes in the past 4 to 5 Billion years, logic would tend to support influences that have been in place for 4-5 Billion years.
i.e the planets orbit or the massive volatile flaming ball of gas

If man is responsible for the current climate change, who is responsible for the numerous ice ages, and firestorms which have occurred over the life of the planet
Man has only been here for 10,000+ years

You might not be aware but to develop a reputation as a leader in an academic field takes a decade or two of work. And yes, if you take a look at academics, their is a reason why the brightest stars make their mark while young. It has a lot to do with neural plasticity

.
too bad this is not about developing a reputation in academia, it is about applying scientific logic without bias to come to a conclusion

And yes, he may be well spoken but as I said before, so are con men.

He resigned from the American Physical Society because he adamantly believes their position on climate change was incorrect.

Conmen do not risk their reputation like that
Con men do however state they are absolutely 100% right

And you're right. I'm not an expert. I do have the sense to realize that the vast majority of those who are see human produced CO2 as a major factor in climactic changes.

I have no issue with this statement other than a majority does not provide absolute certainty

Unlike you' I'm not going to sit and hope that some imaginary future evidence will contradict what is the best current conclusion.

Despite my efforts to be clear on my position you seem to be having difficulty comprehending.

There is a difference between evaluating a theory and applying logic to form a conclusion vs. hoping the data supports a pre-conceived position

Implying I hope future evidence contradicts the popular opinion is absurd
I have stated many times action should be taken to reduce the possible impact of our activity on the climate as the future of our species is at risk
I am sceptical, especially of those who are 100% absolute, however applying efforts to reduce the risk is the responsible coarse of action, whether you are right or you are wrong

 

[JohnLarue]

Not at all. They are absolutely the best conclusion based on the evidence available.

The best conclusion based on the evidence available, when you know viable alternative theories exist ?
No way you can state absolute 100% certainty based upon the best evidence available ?
I suggest you take a first year college science course

Again you are simply hoping that some evidence could be found to validate your preconceived ideas.

Really?
One of us has an open mind about this issue and it is not you
I have stated many times action should be taken to reduce the possible impact of our activity on the climate as the future of our species is at risk
I am sceptical, especially of those who are 100% absolute, however applying efforts to reduce the risk is the responsible coarse of action, whether you are right or you are wrong

 

[Moviefan-2]

Based on the graphs of the models they did a good job. If the best you can do to deny AGW is to point to a scientific study that realized they overemphasized a feedback loop then you really are a hopeless case.

While you are spending your time trying to prove science wrong, scientists are using new evidence to further refine those models.

Actually, you're the one who is trying to "prove science wrong."

Climate researchers on both sides of the debate now agree that the computer predictions were "substantially" off the mark and that the temperature increases that were predicted for the early part of the 21st century didn't happen. I accept those findings, while you reject the scientists' peer-reviewed papers and try to claim the models "did a good job."

You're entitled to your opinion, but it is not supported by the data or by growing numbers of climate researchers, including some of the chief proponents of the whole AGW claim. Your so-called "scientific community" says you're wrong.

http://business.financialpost.com/o...-not/wcm/477730dd-c684-4e66-bb8d-a16e70139b68

 

[basketcase]

Found to be lacking?
You do not know if the earths orbit may have sufficient variability to impact the planets climate, so you conclude with absolute certainty that Climate Change is man made?
You do not know if the is any variability in the radiation from the sun which could impact the planets climate, so you conclude with absolute certainty that Climate Change is man made?...

And once again you are looking for imaginary evidence to justify your preconceptions.

 

[basketcase]

The best conclusion based on the evidence available, when you know viable alternative theories exist ?...

Then why does the scientific community see those alternatives as insufficient? Either you are like K who believes science is a conspiracy of you have evidence that most of the scientific community doesn't.

 

[JohnLarue]

And once again you are looking for imaginary evidence to justify your preconceptions.

if you can not disprove it how can it be imaginary
And for the hundredth time I do not have preconceptions.
I have a definite concern we may be slow roasting our planet
I am just sceptical when anyone claims to be 100% Absolute when assigning a cause and effect to what is very likely a very complex problem

You are the one who refuses to even consider other possible explanations, so in fact it is you who has a preconception

 

[SuperCharge]

You are the one who refuses to even consider other possible explanations, so in fact it is you who has a preconception

Reluctance to look at contrary opinions is typical of those sucked in to the farce. They're like horses with blinders on.

 

[JohnLarue]

Then why does the scientific community see those alternatives as insufficient?

I can only guess, however:
a) publish or perish
b) many are envior warriors first and scientists second
c) measuring variations in the earths orbit and / or variations in the suns radiation output over long periods of time is difficult/ impossible or will take thousands of years to accomplish
d) group think
e) little upside in publishing an unpopular conclusion
f) fear that the outcome may have decided long before and that man can not fix the issue by changing behaviour
g) nobody has thoroughly investigated these alternatives (time and money is required)
h)
I)
j) they are not getting in enough fibre in their diet

Either you are like K who believes science is a conspiracy of you have evidence that most of the scientific community doesn't.

No I believe science is not a conspiracy, rather it is based upon the application of logic and scientific methodology to test theories.
Very few theories result in 100% absolute conclusions.
Most scientific conclusions are generally accompanied by a level of confidence in the conclusion, which is generally not 100% absolute

Thus when someone says their conclusion is 100% absolute, I begin to question if they truly understand what they are speaking of i.e. are you a scientist or an envior warrior ?
Either way I become sceptical of their claim

As I said before those that claim 100% absolute may be doing more harm than good to the cause

 

[Moviefan-2]

Either you are like K who believes science is a conspiracy....

This is one of those cases where I'm not certain everyone on TERB understands the meaning of the word "conspiracy." A conspiracy is supposed to be a secret plan.

There's nothing secret about the political agenda behind climate change activism.

For example, allow me to quote from Naomi Klein's new book, No Is Not Enough, which the Globe and the Star both report is a bestseller (Page 82):

"(T)he challenge ... requires throwing out the neo-liberal rulebook, and confronting the centrality of ever-expanding consumption in how we measure economic progress."

"(T)o avert climate chaos, we need to challenge the capitalist ideologies that have conquered the world since the 1980s."

Klein and her fellow travellers -- Chris Hedges, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Robert B. Reich, Linda McQuaig, etc. -- are completely transparent about the political goals behind the climate change movement. It's not a conspiracy -- the political agenda at the heart of the issue is an established fact.

 

[canada-man]

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

 

[Moviefan-2]

One more from Ms Klein's latest book (Page 235):

"(I)f we want a shot at avoiding catastrophic warming, we need to start a grand economic and political transition right now."

 

[basketcase]

I can only guess, however:
a) publish or perish

So why don't they publish different views? My experience with academia requires people to publish NEW ideas. If there was sufficient evidence for other theories they would be published.

b) many are envior warriors first and scientists second

Conspiracy theory.

c) measuring variations in the earths orbit and / or variations in the suns radiation output over long periods of time is difficult/ impossible or will take thousands of years to accomplish

Again you are looking for hypothetical evidence.

d) group think

Again, conspiracy theory.

e) little upside in publishing an unpopular conclusion

Except notoriety (or funding from the oil lobby like some of the prominent denier scientists)

f) fear that the outcome may have decided long before and that man can not fix the issue by changing behaviour[/quote

Not only are you admitting CO2 is a major factor but you also ignore that scientists care about science and will search for better conclusions regardless of the application.

g) nobody has thoroughly investigated these alternatives (time and money is required)

Bullshit. Go read some science and you will find plenty of scientists who have studied other theories. They don't gain prominence simply because their work doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

As I said, based on the available evidence, human CO2 as a major factor in climate change is absolutely the correct conclusion.

 

[basketcase]

This is one of those cases where I'm not certain everyone on TERB understands the meaning of the word "conspiracy." A conspiracy is supposed to be a secret plan.

There's nothing secret about the political agenda behind climate change activism.

For example, allow me to quote from Naomi Klein's new book, No Is Not Enough, which the Globe and the Star both report is a bestseller (Page 82):

"(T)he challenge ... requires throwing out the neo-liberal rulebook, and confronting the centrality of ever-expanding consumption in how we measure economic progress."

"(T)o avert climate chaos, we need to challenge the capitalist ideologies that have conquered the world since the 1980s."

Klein and her fellow travellers -- Chris Hedges, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Robert B. Reich, Linda McQuaig, etc. -- are completely transparent about the political goals behind the climate change movement. It's not a conspiracy -- the political agenda at the heart of the issue is an established fact.

So you admit you see science as a conspiracy theory. Pathetic.

All you have on your side is to try and nitpick little holes in what scientists believe.


p.s. In what world is Naomi Klein a scientist?

 

[canada-man]

So you admit you see science as a conspiracy theory. Pathetic.

All you have on your side is to try and nitpick little holes in what scientists believe.


p.s. In what world is Naomi Klein a scientist?

There's nothing secret about the political agenda behind climate change activism.

you cannot read

 

[JohnLarue]

So why don't they publish different views? My experience with academia requires people to publish NEW ideas. If there was sufficient evidence for other theories they would be published.

What ??
Start by publishing a paper saying man made Co2 is roasting the planet, then later publishing one saying "hold on, it may be the variances in the planets orbit which are causing global warning" ?

Perhaps the next wave of PHD candidates will challenge the status quo

Conspiracy theory.

Bullshit
The current generation has had "save the planet" drilled into them since they could walk and talk. (In the long run this may be a good thing)
You are lying to yourself if you think that did not have any influence on the scientists, their choice of occupation, study and conclusions

Again you are looking for hypothetical evidence.

Again, you can not dismiss this hypothesis unless you can prove it incorrect.
That is how science works

The only difference between the hypothesis claiming man-made CO2 maybe causing Global Warming and
the hypothesis claiming variations in the suns radiation maybe causing Global Warming is some people have written papers and received grant money to study the former.

That is no reason to dismiss the latter

Again, conspiracy theory.

Again you are fooling yourself if you think that does not occur in acedemia

Except notoriety (or funding from the oil lobby like some of the prominent denier scientists)

Oh so there are additional scientists who have questioned the status quo and disagree with your 100% absolute position
It is shameful how you can so easily dismiss them without having reviewed their theories, data and conclusions

f) fear that the outcome may have decided long before and that man can not fix the issue by changing behaviour[/quote

Not only are you admitting CO2 is a major factor but you also ignore that scientists care about science and will search for better conclusions regardless of the application.

I am not admitting anything
Do you have a difficult time processing logic?

Fear that man can not influence his future is plain and simple a common human frailty, regardless of ones occupation.
By accepting the theory that Global warming is cause by either a variation the orbit or variation in the suns radiation, one is also accepting the fact that there is nothing mankind can do to prevent our inevitable extinction.
That is a fear some will refuse to ever accept, so they prefer the man made scenario

Bullshit. Go read some science and you will find plenty of scientists who have studied other theories. They don't gain prominence simply because their work doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

All other theories?

Again you are claiming 100% absolute , so it only takes one unexplained theory to prove you wrong
Personally I wonder about the variations in the radiation from the sun

As I said, based on the available evidence,

That is not good enough to be absolute

human CO2 as a major factor in climate change is absolutely the correct conclusion.

Sadly it may be a contributor, some others believe is it actually water vapour which causes the warming or less trees in the rainforest to absorb the CO2.
Bye the way, man maybe able to influence these factors and hence avoid extinction

Your conclusion is not absolute as there is plenty of doubt to go round

 

[fuji]

There's no doubt that CO2 is heating up the planet. It's a settled question. It's been precisely measured.

People like Larue really are clueless and mindlessly repeating bullshit.

It's an absolute fact. Not debated.