Science Deniers are Everywhere

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Latest news is that France Italy and Germany issued a joint statement that the Paris Accords can't be renegotiated.

Renegotiate with who?

I suggest you ask the French, Italians and Germans. They, and not me, made the statement.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Assuming all of the CC orthodoxy is absolutely true and all of the dire predictions are accurate, why would anyone who fears for humanity and the earth be OK with giving "breaks" on emission reductions to certain "developing" nations?

The efforts that each country should make under the Paris agreement are determined by each country individually and called "nationally determined contributions" (NDCs). The level of NDCs set by each country will set that country's targets. There are no special breaks on emmission reduction on amyone, and no imposition on the US or any other state either. What any country does under the agreement is all voluntary.

If you're OK with the NDCs of China and India, you gave them breaks

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Wikipedia is a great reference but it's very nature allows for all sorts of biased entries

This is not the statement of an unbiased reference source as it reflects an obvious value judgments

Quote:

Inhofe is notorious for having called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people" and for having claimed to have debunked the alleged hoax in February 2015 when he brought a snowball with him in the Senate chamber and tossed it across the floor.

This is hardly a statement of certitude about anything.

Quote:

Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States.

And if skepticism is warranted than right-wing think tanks should be praised:

Quote:

More than 90% of papers sceptical [sic] on climate change originate from [American] right-wing think tanks.[27] The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million.

This is opinion, not fact

Quote:

seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Any here's something even more interesting. When I clicked on your link I got this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial:

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.

While Figure 1 is illustrative of most geographical locations, there is great variability of temperature records with location and regional climate. Comprehensive surveys of published temperature records confirm the principal features of Figure 1, including the fact that the current Earth temperature is approximately 1 °C lower than that during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
___________________________________________

Show me the study that contradicts this assessment.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

The fcts produced by the Oregon Institute are often fast presented and little based on actual evidence.
I notice they still keep Martin Kamen as one of their"faculty" and credit him with the "Discovery of C14". (Prhaps they didnt get the memo that Kamen died almost 20 years ago)
His work on artifiial synthesis of C14 was done in the 1960's, C14(and its formation in the atmosphere) had been known for quite a number of years before his synthesis team work.

Libby's work on the half life of C14 and its use as an "atomic Clock" was published almost 15 years earlier .

1 Reply

From Forbes:

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#4f47ffdc3bb3

1 Reply

@Glennn,

READ ME

1 Reply

@farmerman,

"Consensus" percentages must be looked t wrt time the survey was taken. I see that the loqwer number 80+% for AGU (of which Im a member and get the info) is now above 97% (as per 2012. This can be seen in several disciplines and we should lso note that people WITHOUT any climate expertise are often the dissenters.
A BUNCH A SURVEY DATA

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You forgot to produce the study that contradicts the assessment concerning global warming found at the link I provided. You must also believe that something in your post changes the reality of the graphs found here:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Why are so many CC true believers obsessed with this fraudulent statistic?

It hasn't proven to be a compelling argument and there's no reason to believe it will in the future.

"Because we say so!" is rarely an effective argument.

You need to come up with something new if you really want to persuade the skeptics.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

That would take a number of additional papers. I just started to counter the fact that your belief that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas needs revision. Its been known since 1861 (at the start of our Civil War). It absorbs the longwave-which is HEAT. You want that I should go find more stuff?? that counters what you said (of which I have no interest), especially now that we can agree that one critical part of your theses are wrong. (A2k rule is, if one part of your statement is wrong--other parts may also be wrong).
Im not a climate scientist but neither are you.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Im not providing ANY fraud statistics. Im just showing that these fuckin surveys are like gungas reliance on data thats 50 or more years old and he makes believe that its valid. The old survey that reported a 66% consensus was over 25 years ago!!!. Cmon Finnsy, new data supplants old.

I used to be an anthropogenic climate denier . I was a "believer in Oeshger /Danzgarrd cycles, sunspots, precession etc. However the present data supports humans as a major agent of cause.

The "true believers " are the "DONT CONFUSE ME WITH ANY MORE FACTS" folks who dont like to admit they were wrong. It aint hard, Science is just the readjsustment of our error, until we get it right.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I don't recall saying that Co2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Did you look at the graphs at the link I provided. Do you refute them?

Also, this would be a great time to produce the studies that contradict the information and graphs found here:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Gotnything? Maybe some graphs that prove your beliefs about global warming?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im not a climate scientist but neither are you.

Precisely.

And so the question is should citizens who have no real understanding of climate science accept what a majority of climate scientists say and ignore the minority who disagree?

National climate change policy is never going to be based on the understanding of the science. Obama didn't understand it all and we can be certain that neither does Trump.

I'm certainly not a climate scientist but I can tell you that as long as CC True Believers think that the US should sacrifice more of it's prosperity than China, India, et al, I am going to figure that ideology is very strongly at play here.

If your village is about to be destroyed by an erupting volcano, you don't quibble about who needs to leave more riches behind.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

If as you say (falsely it turns out ) there is nothing compulsory in the Paris agreement, then why the hell are you concerned because we pulled out of it?

This is the part I'm still trying to figure out as well.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Because Olivier is anti-American.

It's that simple.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I'm not anti-American, but your buddy Glenn here is. That's why he can't possibly accept that America was victim of 9/11 rather than perpetrator.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

If as you say (falsely it turns out ) there is nothing compulsory in the Paris agreement, then why the hell are you concerned because we pulled out of it?

What do you mean by "falsely it turns out"? What I wrote was perfectly accurate: signatory nations have to set their own targets for emmission control under the Paris agreement. That is compulsory of course, but the targets are defined by each state for itself.

And no, I am not too concerned because the US pulled out of it... Every cloud has a silver lining. Trump can now be used as repoussoir by other world leaders, an example of what not to do, and in any case even if he had stayed in the agreement he would never have done anything serious to implement it...

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
_____
Show me the study that contradicts this assessment.

This is not an assessment, it's a pile of garbage collected by professional garbage collectors. The sun's activity cannot explain global warming away.

1 Reply

Science Deniers are Everywhere

Quick Links

My Account

able2know