A new record: CO2 levels in the atmosphere hit an all-time high

[PornAddict]

That is not the IPCC mission statement.

You are full of shit frankY! why are you responding to Laure point ?? He made a valid case proving his point and his precious argument on previous thread post on climate change and Laure is already put you on ignore! Lefit like you are so fanatical and will cause the harm to Science with your pseudoscience On climate change rebranded from" global warming" when they couldn't push their phoney science. Once they rebrand as climate change they were able to push their agenda!
Personally you & and the other climate alarmist should abandon modern living and go back living the Stone Age lifestyle And let the rest of civilization live the modern lifestyle!

 

[Frankfooter]

You are full of shit frankY!

This is the IPCC mission statement.
https://www.ipcc.ch/about/#:~:text=Created in 1988 by the,use to develop climate policies

larue is posting nonsense.

 

[basketcase]

here is the ipcc original governing principles1

as per ross mckitricks comprehensive review...

So some guy's opinion is more significant than actually the founding documents of the IPCC? No wonder you find science so challenging.

 

[basketcase]

The real world ...

The real world has instituted laws about how scientific conclusions are made? Love to see the law textbooks that contain those alternative facts.

A simple thought experiment for you: Scientists are studying a huge variety of aspects impacting climate and climate change. The clear majority conclude that human produced CO2 is playing a significant role in the current warming pattern the Earth is experiencing. Which option do you think...actually, we know that. let me rephrase. What option would rational people think makes more sense.
a) The entire scientific community is colluding to eliminate evidence and abetting political agendas to show CO2 is a major player (for some unknown reason) or,
b) It's because the preponderance of the evidence says that human CO2 is the best theory with the evidence currently available.

And the biggest part of your anti-science bullshit is your claims that the evidence refutes CO2 being the major player. It is a claim straight out of the conspiracy theorist manual to take tiny little things that science can't explain and attempt to use it to undermine the entire field of study.

But you keep up your crusade against science just because you are a personality type that is uncomfortable with change and believes that change must be part of a nefarious plot.

 

[basketcase]

...

But 4 consecutive years below the mean projections mean we should ignore all the years that are above.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sad that you guys cheer bad news because you think it scores you some points.

Hear, hear!

There's nothing I hate to see quite as much as people cheering bad news because they think it scores them some points.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52488134

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rom-coronavirus-crisis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...e-to-reset-global-economy-says-prince-charles

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...an-air-travel-climate-change-carbon-emissions

https://www.greenpeace.org/internat...mate-change-covid-19-coronavirus-environment/

https://www.ft.com/content/eb683e52-95d0-11ea-abcd-371e24b679ed

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/covid-19-apply-battling-climate-change/

https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2020/06/12/climate-justice-racial-justice/

https://www.technologyreview.com/20...he-protests-and-climate-crisis-are-connected/

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/r...tter&utm_campaign=sierramag&utm_medium=social

https://algore.com/news/al-gore-statement-on-recent-demonstrations-for-racial-justice

:biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

The real world has instituted laws about how scientific conclusions are made? Love to see the law textbooks that contain those alternative facts.

A simple thought experiment for you: Scientists are studying a huge variety of aspects impacting climate and climate change. The clear majority conclude that human produced CO2 is playing a significant role in the current warming pattern the Earth is experiencing. Which option do you think...actually, we know that. let me rephrase. What option would rational people think makes more sense.
a) The entire scientific community is colluding to eliminate evidence and abetting political agendas to show CO2 is a major player (for some unknown reason) or,
b) It's because the preponderance of the evidence says that human CO2 is the best theory with the evidence currently available.

And the biggest part of your anti-science bullshit is your claims that the evidence refutes CO2 being the major player. It is a claim straight out of the conspiracy theorist manual to take tiny little things that science can't explain and attempt to use it to undermine the entire field of study.

But you keep up your crusade against science just because you are a personality type that is uncomfortable with change and believes that change must be part of a nefarious plot.

The collusion argument is really hilarious.
It relies on some nefarious agency managing to get tens of thousands of scientists from over 150 country, working under right, left and autocratic leaderships all to fake their findings for 40 years in a row.
It also relies on right wing and left wing government funding scientists to fake results for 'left wing' goals.

Its about 99% of scientists who support the findings of climatologists at the IPCC now.
You can't even get the republican party to agree to back Trump with that much consensus.

 

[Frankfooter]

Hear, hear!

There's nothing I hate to see quite as much as people cheering bad news because they think it scores them some points.
:

Hey, the coronavirus proved that the world can work suddenly and drastically to fix problems.
Why not fix other big problems at the same time?

 

[JohnLarue]

The real world has instituted laws about how scientific conclusions are made? Love to see the law textbooks that contain those alternative facts.

The real world has benefited greatly from the scientific method based upon unbiased testing of hypothesis and rejection of hypothesis when experimental data does not fully support the hypothesis
think about modern medicine & drug development. $millions spent on a drugs development, yet if the clinical trial data does not support the therapeutic hypothesis. the development stops dead
"Reasonably successful" (only 3% of the lab rats died, a 97% success rate) does not cut it - Note the 97% value and its relevance to the climate propaganda

A simple thought experiment for you: Scientists are studying a huge variety of aspects impacting climate and climate change. The clear majority conclude that human produced CO2 is playing a significant role in the current warming pattern the Earth is experiencing. Which option do you think...actually, we know that. let me rephrase. What option would rational people think makes more sense.
a) The entire scientific community is colluding to eliminate evidence and abetting political agendas to show CO2 is a major player (for some unknown reason) or,
b) It's because the preponderance of the evidence says that human CO2 is the best theory with the evidence currently available.

far too simple as

"The clear majority"

is your basis for determination
I do not know why you seem to think the physical laws of nature are determined by democratic vote or a polled opinion. That is not science. period. end of story
Physics does not obey the ebbs and flows of human opinions which are subject to emotion, manipulation, ignorance and misinterpretation . Ask Galileo

Better yet Richard Fynman stated
https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science

Towards the end of his talk to the National Science Teachers Association, Feynman noted from his own experience that science is neither its content nor form. To just copy or imitate the method of the past is indeed to not be doing science. Feynman says we learn from science that you must doubt the experts: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

It is a shame he is still not alive to weigh in on this farce.

Again I will repeat this very simple truism for you
A hypothesis is only supported by the experimental data for each and every experiment and must be rejected if any experimental data does not support the hypothesis

Climate science has become puedo science because
1. It predetermined the conclusion by narrowing the scope of inquiry to anthropocentric causes only
2. Actively applies time and resources to vigorously and constantly silence opposing views (despicable and will be extremely detrimental to ALL science)
3. Relies on propaganda to support its pre-determined conclusion
4. Allowed politics to determine the agenda & the conclusion
5. The corruption of the peer review process (Michael Mann & Phil Jones)
6. Outright fraud - The hockey stick Michael Mann, the 97% study by John Cook
7, The sheer magnitude of unsubstantiated evils caused by CO2
Hurricanes, tornado, drought, floods, rising water levels in the great lakes, falling water levels in the great lakes, crop failures, locusts, global warming, global cooling, the corona virus, mass migration, ocean acidification, species extinction, youth anxiety, erosion, wild fires, wars, financial ruin, divorce, spread of disease , climate change the musical.......... etc etc. The propaganda effort is impressive, however it is pretty clear it is a propaganda effort

8. Ignores or remains silent on basic physical facts such as
a) the dominance of water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas
b) the diminishing returns of absorbance with increasing concentration. Absorbance is logarithmic
c) the 2000 to 5000 ppm of CO2 in the past which included ice ages
d) Temperature increases determined in antarctic ice cores predate co2 increases by 500-800 years
I have yet to see any honest , credible response with evidence to refute these last four very important facts

And the biggest part of your anti-science bullshit is your claims that the evidence refutes CO2 being the major player. It is a claim straight out of the conspiracy theorist manual to take tiny little things that science can't explain and attempt to use it to undermine the entire field of study.

Well little thing such as water vapor being the dominate greenhouse gas and the logarithmic nature of absorption are (sadly for you) SCIENTIFIC FACTS and real science does not ignore scientific facts simply because they are inconvenient truths

But you keep up your crusade against science just because you are a personality type that is uncomfortable with change and believes that change must be part of a nefarious plot.

Change ?? Your dreaming in technicolor if you think solar & wind is going to replace fossil fuels
30 years and billions of wasted taxpayers money later and renewables that do not create CO2 are what 2-5% of world energy consumption?
And oil consumption keeps growing
A massive increase in nuclear is the only realistic avenue to reduce fossil fuel consumption, however the loonies hate and oppose nuclear just as much as oil

How odd that you prefer to ignore definitive scientific facts , yet you accuse me of being anti-science
And I had given you more credit than Frankfooter. Oh well live and learn

 

[Frankfooter]

A hypothesis is only supported by the experimental data for each and every experiment and must be rejected if any experimental data does not support the hypothesis

Hypothesis:
Human produced CO2 and greenhouse gases are causing anthropomorphic climate change.

Proof:

 

[Valcazar]

A hypothesis is only supported by the experimental data for each and every experiment and must be rejected if any experimental data does not support the hypothesis

That's not how science works.

 

[canada-man]

Hypothesis:
Human produced CO2 and greenhouse gases are causing anthropomorphic climate change.

Proof:

why does your graph started at 1880? the earth is millions of years old

 

[JohnLarue]

That's not how science works.

Explain yourself
Because that is exactly how science work

 

[K Douglas]

That's not how science works.

Correction: That's not how pseudo science works.

 

[JohnLarue]

why does your graph started at 1880? the earth is millions of years old

It is called spurious correlation
Frankfooter chooses this as the time reference to show some spurious correlation
Too bad for him correlation is not causation

Now franky will say the 1850s time reference was chosen because that is when the Industrial revolution started, however it ignores the fact the planet has had much much higher CO2 levels in the past 2000 to 5000 ppm vs the current 400 ppm and the planet did not roast

Frankies spurious correlation falls apart when a longer time frame is used

 

[K Douglas]

Speaking of pseudoscience, where do you get this bullshit claim from?

In their own words, "The objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies".

It is pretty clear you are full of shit again. Is this your way of saying you deny there is climactic changes due to the overall warming of the Earth?


p.s. Yes, Soon's reputation is trashed because his science failed to measure up and he accidentally exposed his work as "deliverables" to the oil lobby. Sad that you think that guy's conclusions might prove to be true but refuse to admit there are so many papers showing CO2 is the major driver in change.

So we're just supposed to take the words of the IPCC as gospel. You don't believe that they have an agenda? Why don't you look at their history and read the actual science reports from the first few IPCC studies. You'll find the science and the summary for policymakers aren't exactly painting the same picture. That is what prompted many good scientists to leave the organization, others were expelled when they spoke out.

If you still have any questions about the IPCC and just think I'm spewing conspiracy nut theory, why don't you analyze how well the WHO performed during this pandemic.How about looking at who sits on the UN Human Rights Council. See who's controlled the IMF for years.

 

[Frankfooter]

It is called spurious correlation
Frankfooter chooses this as the time reference to show some spurious correlation
Too bad for him correlation is not causation

Its super easy to confirm its not just correlation.
First, you have to identify all the possible forcings that could be changing the climate.
The only other major sources suggested are:
Changes in the earth's orbit
Solar radiation changes
Volcanoes
Deforestation
Ozone pollution
Aerosol pollution

vs Greenhouse gases.

Fortunately there is a handy graphic put together by NASA about 5 years ago that plots all of those influence against the change global temperature.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

There is no alternate theory that explains the change in global temperature.

Mr Science's only explanation is 'the climate changes' but it doesn't change without climate forcings to make it change.
So unless he can come up with a better forcing that is driving climate change, its not correlation its causation.

 

[Frankfooter]

why does your graph started at 1880? the earth is millions of years old

1880 is roughly the start of major human greenhouse gas emissions with the rise of industrialization.
Why do you have a problem with that date?

 

[Frankfooter]

So we're just supposed to take the words of the IPCC as gospel.

You are free to read and criticize all the scientific research papers they based their reports on. They are all linked and available in those reports. And if you find issues you are free to raise them. But considering that the fossil fuel industry has already invested millions and millions into funding their own lobbyists and scientists to try to find errors in those works and nothing legit has come out, you're in for a massive job.

Feel free to come up with your own explanation why the increase in global temperature and increase in CO2 emissions aren't linked.
Larue is going all out on this one, he could use all the help he can find.

 

[JohnLarue]

So we're just supposed to take the words of the IPCC as gospel. You don't believe that they have an agenda? Why don't you look at their history and read the actual science reports from the first few IPCC studies. You'll find the science and the summary for policymakers aren't exactly painting the same picture. That is what prompted many good scientists to leave the organization, others were expelled when they spoke out.

If you still have any questions about the IPCC and just think I'm spewing conspiracy nut theory, why don't you analyze how well the WHO performed during this pandemic.How about looking at who sits on the UN Human Rights Council. See who's controlled the IMF for years.

http://www.habitat21.co.uk/energy151.html

The following scientists have worked for the IPCC but no longer do so because of the way their work has been misrepresented:
More details and links about these events, which I have summarized from the web page https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4resign are shown here. .

Christopher Landsea
Landsea is a scientist who has studied hurricanes for 20 years. He took part in the second and third IPCC reports. He resigned from the IPCC in January 2005 over the issue of exaggerated claims of the influence of global warming on hurricanes. In his resignation letter, he said "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."

Paul Reiter
Reiter is a specialist in tropical diseases. He was a contributing author to the WGII report of the TAR (2001) (chapter 9, dealing with impacts on human health). He found it difficult to work with lead authors who were not experts in the field, who were insisting on a link between climate change and diseases such as malaria. As a result he resigned from the IPCC. In a report to the House of Lords he wrote: "In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on "experts" who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science."

Richard Lindzen
Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He was a lead author on Chapter 7 of the IPCC TAR, published in 2001. In May of that year he was critical of the Summary for Policymakers, which he said misrepresents what scientists say. He also said that the IPCC encourages misuse of the Summary; that the Summary does not reflect the full document, and that the final version was modified from the draft in a way to exaggerate man-made warming. He did not participate in later IPCC reports.

John T Everett
Everett is knowledgeable about fisheries and the oceans. He worked for the IPCC until 2000. In a statement to the US House of Representatives in 2007 he called for "a reality check" and said that warming is not a bad thing. He has a website highly critical of the IPCC.

Tom Segalstad
Segalstad is a geologist and former IPCC expert reviewer. He has a web site critical of the IPCC and climate alarmism.

Hans von Storch
Hans von Storch was a lead author in the Third Assessment Report (2001). In 2004 he published a paper that was critical of the "hockey stick" picture which was prominent in the TAR. He volunteered to act as a lead author in AR4, but was not chosen. He has said "IPCC authors have decided to violate the mission of the IPCC, by presenting disinformation".

Roger Pielke sr.
Roger Pielke is an atmospheric scientist. He was invited to write as a coauthor for the second IPCC report (1995), but his comments were ignored, so he resigned from what he saw as a biased assessment process. His resignation letter is in the public domain.

The IPCC is a dysfunctional organization run by activists promoting a political agenda using puedo-science to communicate dis-information, panic and mis-representation.
The vast majority of the leadership are members of Greenpeace and the WWF. Uncompromising doing dirty work behind the scenes Gerald Butts types
This is a corrupt organization