ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
So true,...
Nature has a history of publishing known to be faulty and utter bull shit articles,...which confirms its "peer review" process,...I still get a chuckle when I read that,...is usless and biased.
Not sure where your NASA link is in this thread, but found 2 NASA articles on CO2, and neither says CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change or global warming. CO2 does seem to be the main gas, among the many gasses we are releasing in the atmosphere, they are watching and concerned about.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas...
https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/pia18934
Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Preliminary analysis of the African data shows the high levels there are largely driven by the burning of savannas and forests.
Thought that article was interesting. Not only is the burning of the forests releasing vast amounts of CO2, but there will be fewer trees to absorb the CO2 in the future. Don't know if changing the landscape in such a major way will affect the climate. Can't really point fingers at the them and say stop burning the forests when we have cleared our forests.
For cloud cover, don't know if there is more or less now, just that very small changes in cloud cover have a noticeable impact on temperature.
If it turns out increased CO2 levels cause global temperatures to increase, we're screwed.
Even if burning fossil fuels is not the main culprit, and I am not agreeing that it is not, does that change the fact that it is a culprit and it is something which is within our power to change. This common tactic by climate change deniers in looking for other contributors, does not change the facts or the science. When will pole wake up and realize that public opinion is being manipulated in large by coal industry money. Wake up and smell the future of our grandchildren being sold.
Dead wrong.
It's come to this: Fuji doesn't understand the science and is incapable of providing responses with any substance. So he's now just spamming baseless comments.
In fact, the peer-reviewed papers I provided confirm that scientists on both sides of the debate now agree that the computer-model predictions have been completely wrong.
Let me spell this out for those who don't get it: What that means is there is no evidence that man-made emissions make any statistically meaningful contribution to warming.
The fact that the planet may have experienced minuscule changes in temperature in the 21st century doesn't prove anything. Certainly, we all agree that the Earth's temperature has reportedly increased by an insignificant 1C over the past 135 years.
The debate is about the premise that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950. The only way to test that premise is to compare the observed data with the predictions.
Throughout the 21st century, the predictions have been "substantially" off the mark. Given what we know today, we must conclude that the AGW hypothesis isn't supported by evidence.
That's exactly what K Douglas, FAST, myself and others have been saying for years.
This I agree with, although I would change the last part to the fact that it is likely a culprit
Not without significant changes to our developed economies and not without choking off growth in developing countries. And that is very unlikely to occur. And there is no way in hell you will get one without the other
I am not opposed to conservation nor am I against implementing new technologies
Carbon taxing is not going to work
You should refrain from using "deniers" as it implies people either agree with you or they are opposed and are in denial. In the real world there are likely a great many people who are truly concerned Climate Change may be cause by man, yet are sceptical of tree hugging self proclaimed experts who are ABSOLUTE on this issue
Peabody coal just recently went bankrupt. Not that much money in coal presently. While the US industry no doubt has a lobby group, they have not manipulated public opinion.
Statements like that just water down the credibility of your message.
I agree that inaction may well result in a world which may become a nightmare for future generations, but do not try to make out like a set of robber barons are the culprits
Can you say with absolute 100% certainty that any of these events have never occurred before in the 4-5 Billion year history of the planet?
Whatever you are trying to justify, the Church and the scientific community (in Europe was often one and the same) knew that the world was round and even knew the approximate radius.
And again you are trying to pretend that hoping evidence comes along is the same thing as actual evidence. The actual evidence supports human CO2 as a major factor in current climactic change. It is possible in the future that they may see some contradictory evidence but it is just as likely that the evidence will continue to support the conclusion of the scientific community.
Other than he is well outside his area of specialty, well past his prime research days, and contradicted by most of the scientific community?
And here you straight out argue against science. Science is about conclusions based on the best evidence available. At this point you have to admit that you join KDouglas in believing that science is really a conspiracy or at least admit that your reference to scientific method is just a pretense to justify your deeply held bias.
Says the guy who quotes papers that disagree with him. The paper still sees human CO2 as the major factor.
I guess it's never been 49C in Arizona before. And I guess Portugal has never experienced forest fires in the past either. Or that almost all fires are set by humans, intentionally or unintentionally. But hey doesn't fit the narrative of the climate change bogeyman eh?
Keep denying the facts BC, history will ultimately prove you wrong. Do yourself a favor and click the link I provided, you might learn a thing or two.
The papers agree with me that the computer models miscalculated the impact of water vapour feedback and that the predictions about man-made warming were completely wrong.
That means there is no evidence of any man-made warming. In the absence of evidence, it makes no difference whether or not some climate researchers still want to believe in it.
Indeed, we've been telling you for years that the models were wrong. It was obvious to anyone who was prepared to look at the data and the graphs.
You simply refused to pay attention to facts that you didn't want to hear. Judging from your posts last night, that is still the case.
Not to mention the complete reversals that are done when the situation is the opposite of what was predicted, such as the "permanent" drought predictions in Australia that were soon followed by record rainfall and flooding.I guess it's never been 49C in Arizona before. And I guess Portugal has never experienced forest fires in the past either. Or that almost all fires are set by humans, intentionally or unintentionally. But hey doesn't fit the narrative of the climate change bogeyman eh?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...g/news-story/4bccb39d4c8fa4b7e0158dab92dadba2
I think this line in Terence Corcoran's column today in the National Post captures it perfectly.
http://business.financialpost.com/o...ming/wcm/bb83f67e-5a96-42a4-9e49-8a8fb0296df2
I can't recall who said it, but one skeptic summed it up perfectly: If everything is evidence of climate change, then nothing is evidence of climate change.
NASA,..."Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Preliminary analysis of the African data shows the high levels there are largely driven by the burning of savannas and forests."
Confirms what has been stated over and over again,...the sky is about to fall factions prefer NOT publically admit that deforestation is a bigger contributor to the theoretical increase of C02 than burning fossil fuels.
And also confirms the, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine,...with that corrupt institution,...the UN.
Last edited:
With ridiculous leaps of logic like that I'm not surprised you are anti-science.
?? Had one tried to speak of evolution in 15th century Spain, one would have been burnt at the stake.
The church and the scientific community were often one and the same???? Only if someone did not cry "heresy"
Lots of opposing opinions were set to a fiery grave with the utterance of "heresy"
Absolutely not
I am simply pointing out there are several other reasonable explanations which are completely ignored when assigning climate change to human activity with absolute certainty
Only if you dismiss unquantified alternative theories.
That is not science
That may very well be true, however until you can scientifically dismiss the multiple null hypothesis, your conclusion remains unproven.
It remains " Human activity may be causing Global Warming" as opposed to " Human activity is absolutely causing Global Warming"
Some may say I am splitting hairs as action to reduce the possible impact should be taken in either case.
However I firmly believe that those who claim absolute certainty are doing their cause more damage than good and raise serious credibility issues
Is a mind which is capable of advancing quantum physics, not qualified to examine the science of climate change?
if that is the case I would wager you are certainly not qualified to apply "Absolute Certainty " to your conclusion.
I doubt there is a shelf life on Intellectual capabilities, particularity for a genius
Again did you watch his video?
He was rational and well spoken
Science is not be a popularity contest
If there are flaws in the theory, experimental methodology, data or interpretation of the results, the conclusion is not absolute, regardless of how many repeated the mistake
Conclusions based on the best evidence available are not absolute
They are at best an estimate
Even in a legal setting one is not convicted based on the best evidence available, rather it has to be in the absence of any reasonable doubt
Given alternative scenarios for climate change remain unresolved, there is some reasonable doubt.
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.
In case you've forgotten, you have spent the past few years insisting the AGW models got it right.
For example, here is one of your quotes from April 24 of last year:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531841&viewfull=1#post5531841
You now have climate researchers on both sides of the debate saying you were completely wrong and that the predictions were "substantially" different than the actual temperature anomalies in the 21st century.
That must be quite humbling. Under the circumstances, I'm sure you would agree that you probably shouldn't be accusing others of being "anti-science." :thumb:
