• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

Jack Hays said:
It's more than enough.

[h=1]“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”[/h]
― Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

Red herring. The OP argues that, against the claim that there is a consensus on the nature and cause of climate change among scientists (presumably, scientists who study climate), there in fact is not a consensus. The argument, then, isn't about what is correct or incorrect, but what scientists who study climate believe.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Red herring. The OP argues that, against the claim that there is a consensus on the nature and cause of climate change among scientists (presumably, scientists who study climate), there in fact is not a consensus. The argument, then, isn't about what is correct or incorrect, but what scientists who study climate believe.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't believe there's consensus because there's a compelling alternative climate hypothesis. (See thread in this subforum.)
I agree with Michael Crichton that the claim of consensus is a weapon used by advocates to shut down debate and delegitimize skeptics.
I therefore have a favorable view of the OP.
 
Jack Hays said:
As you wish. That's what happens when your argument doesn't stand up.
Just like our disagreement long ago about FBI's flawed FISA application. Took a while for the evidence to come out, but I got that one too.
Click to expand...

LOL, I love it when someone declares themselves the winner of a debate. :applaud
 
joko104 said:
The 97% number is a lie. Repeating it millions of times didn't make it more true. "AGW" is radical denial of science.
Click to expand...

I didn't repeat it a single time in this thread. And what I was addressing was the Oregon Petition, which is a joke.

Also, too, it's fascinating how many people ignorant of the science feel qualified to make declarations of fact about it! Who knew expertise didn't matter? FWIW, do you mind reading a WebMD article for me and letting me know the best way to handle my arthritis? I have an appointment next month, but it's $75 out of pocket and I'd rather just poll the DP members.
 
JasperL said:
LOL, I love it when someone declares themselves the winner of a debate. :applaud
Click to expand...

I didn't declare anything for myself; your argument failed.
Nor did I declare anything about FBI/FISA. Justice IG and FISA did that for me.
 
PoS said:
Well I dont trust your silly opinion. Find me a legit source that refutes the petition.
Click to expand...

Burden of proof is on you. Funny how you won't listen to the scientists about climate change, but you are willing to have faith in the opinion of some website. And that quote I referenced is from that very same petition you referenced.
 
JasperL said:
LOL, and to prove you're correct, you'll cite the actual measurements of flow rates you're rejecting when it suits you. :roll:
Click to expand...

If all the rivers of the world follow an obvious pattern of a reasonable relaionship between width of river and flow rate, allowing for deeper rivers having even more flow rate, and the only place where this does not apply and is in fact out of whack by a factor of 200 or more, is Greenland why do you think I am wrong?

Because you want to. And your priests said so.
 
distraff said:
Burden of proof is on you. Funny how you won't listen to the scientists about climate change, but you are willing to have faith in the opinion of some website. And that quote I referenced is from that very same petition you referenced.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The link is in the OP, so you have to prove its false. I bet you wont because you cant.

JasperL said:
LOL, having an undergrad or graduate degree in something vaguely sciency doesn't make one a "scientist." And having a degree in, say, chemistry and even being a scientist whose field is in chemistry does not make one qualified to opine on AGW unless the person is actively engaged in research on, you know, climate issues!

My cousin has a PhD in chemistry and his specialty is nuclear related, filters, etc. and he worked at Y-12 until he retired earlier this year. He knows no more about climate issues than I do, which isn't much, because his entire professional and academic career took him in another direction. My local dog and cat vet knows nothing about the climate that I don't, because he's a vet who treats dogs and cats. You'd call both "scientists" qualified to opine on something both are ignorant about, which is obvious BS.

What's a mystery is why you keep digging this hole for yourself. Even if we accept the "scientist" moniker, which is stupid as hell, then 99.7% of all "scientists" in America didn't sign that stupid petition, which we can then conclude means they're on board with the 'consensus' on AGW!!!
Click to expand...

I could care less about your stupid anecdotes or who your wife's cousin is. You have once again failed to prove the petition is false. Keep failing.

ashurbanipal said:
My internet seems to be working. The "and so on," while a little vague, indicates that my results were typical. I think I clicked about 60 or so links and found much the same pattern from the list. There are lots of papers from the early 90s, which isn't necessarily bad (we still read Einstein's On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, for example), but in this case, probably is, since it can hardly be said to represent current views. A ton of 404s or links just going to the front page of a journal warehouse. Some that give the appearance that whoever compiled this list probably just read the titles--perusing the actual paper indicates much less skepticism of the overall theme of climate change, and merely skepticism about some practical detail--another paper that actually did appear doesn't argue that climate change isn't real, the author just argues that corporations won't adopt changes that aren't "win/win" solutions, and hence we shouldn't bother trying any other kind.

And. So. On.
Click to expand...

Try paying your internet bill, and maybe you wont get 404 errors.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Red herring. The OP argues that, against the claim that there is a consensus on the nature and cause of climate change among scientists (presumably, scientists who study climate), there in fact is not a consensus. The argument, then, isn't about what is correct or incorrect, but what scientists who study climate believe.
Click to expand...
There is a loose consensus, but the boundary conditions are so poorly defined as to not mean much.
NASA covers the consensus in a single sentence.
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Click to expand...
What is missing is any mention of CO2, or how Human activity caused the climate warming trend.
Almost anyone with a science background would agree with that statement, as it could easily include
Human error/fraud in representing the global temperature, as a Human activity.
The debate is not weather CO2 is a greenhouse gas, IT IS!, but how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
Since the end of the 1800's, Scientists have known that Earth is warmer than a gasless rock would be, ~33C warmer.
This 33C is based on an energy imbalance of 150 Wm-2, so the long term fully equalized ratio between Energy imbalance in Wm-2 and temperature,
is .22C per Wm-2. This is somewhat lower than the IPCC .3 C per Wm-2 forcing , and much lower than Hansen's equalized .75 C per Wm-2.
 
longview said:
There is a loose consensus, but the boundary conditions are so poorly defined as to not mean much.
NASA covers the consensus in a single sentence.
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

What is missing is any mention of CO2, or how Human activity caused the climate warming trend.
Almost anyone with a science background would agree with that statement, as it could easily include
Human error/fraud in representing the global temperature, as a Human activity.
The debate is not weather CO2 is a greenhouse gas, IT IS!, but how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
Since the end of the 1800's, Scientists have known that Earth is warmer than a gasless rock would be, ~33C warmer.
This 33C is based on an energy imbalance of 150 Wm-2, so the long term fully equalized ratio between Energy imbalance in Wm-2 and temperature,
is .22C per Wm-2. This is somewhat lower than the IPCC .3 C per Wm-2 forcing , and much lower than Hansen's equalized .75 C per Wm-2.
Click to expand...

There is also a question of timing. The human contribution to CO2 could not have occurred before the 20th century, even the AGW scammers place the beginning of human contribution at 1950. Yet atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing since the 1850s, a full century before humans could have contributed. The human contribution is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. You are arguing over a total contribution of 150 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] out of ~1,365 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] that the sun provides, and out of that 150 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] humans contribute 0.3 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] (based upon EPA's estimate that humans contribute 36 billion tons of CO2 world-wide). A paltry 0.2% of the total atmospheric CO2, which is itself only 0.04% of the total atmosphere.

It has become as esoteric as the old Chinese "Butterfly Effect," where a butterfly flaps its wings in one part of the world causing a hurricane in another part of the world, and just as ridiculous.
 
PoS said:
Try paying your internet bill, and maybe you wont get 404 errors.
Click to expand...

Paid on time monthly. But just to check, I also tried the ones below at my University office, and sent them to my wife at her law firm and asked her to check them. Same results all three times.

Perhaps you could take screenshots of what happens when you click on the first two links under the IPCC heading (md1.csa.com domain) for you and post them here.

You could do the Tractatus logico-climaticus link under the same section.

Also, the only two links under the "An Inconvenient Truth" section.

Also, explain why the first 59 papers listed under the solar section are over 20 years old (some of them nearing 50).

Ditto the Solar Variability and the Earth's Climate: Introduction and Overview link under the solar section. Also the Sun-Weather/Climate Relationships: A Review (the Proceedings of the Indiand National Science Academy links).

Also the cause-and-effect relationship of solar cycle length and the Northern Hemisphere air surface temperature paper under the solar section seems to just go to the front page of a journal warehouse--though it appears to advertise itself as a self-publishing platform. Hmmm...

The link for the paper Evidence of Solar Variation in Tree-Ring-Based Climate Reconstructions also goes to a 404.

While you're at it, kindly find the actual paper (under the Kyoto Protocol section) titled: Differentiation since Kyoto: An exploration of Australian climate policy in comparison to Europe/UK--that one just goes to a main page link.

Or the one called A 2004 View of the Kyoto Protocol in the same section.
 
longview said:
There is a loose consensus, but the boundary conditions are so poorly defined as to not mean much.
NASA covers the consensus in a single sentence.
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

What is missing is any mention of CO2, or how Human activity caused the climate warming trend.
Almost anyone with a science background would agree with that statement, as it could easily include
Human error/fraud in representing the global temperature, as a Human activity.
Click to expand...

No it couldn't. The words "climate-warming trends" refer to a climate that is trending toward the warm side. Not a trend in how climate temperature is being reported.

longview said:
The debate is not weather CO2 is a greenhouse gas, IT IS!
Click to expand...

Would you believe that, back in the day, I got into a great many very long debates with posters who steadfastly refused to believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

longview said:
but how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
Since the end of the 1800's, Scientists have known that Earth is warmer than a gasless rock would be, ~33C warmer.
This 33C is based on an energy imbalance of 150 Wm-2, so the long term fully equalized ratio between Energy imbalance in Wm-2 and temperature,
is .22C per Wm-2. This is somewhat lower than the IPCC .3 C per Wm-2 forcing , and much lower than Hansen's equalized .75 C per Wm-2.
Click to expand...

If I understand your notations correctly, you seem to be assuming that the relationship between total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere and average ambient temperature is linear. That doesn't seem like a very good assumption to me.
 
Glitch said:
There is also a question of timing. The human contribution to CO2 could not have occurred before the 20th century, even the AGW scammers place the beginning of human contribution at 1950. Yet atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing since the 1850s, a full century before humans could have contributed. The human contribution is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. You are arguing over a total contribution of 150 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] out of ~1,365 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] that the sun provides, and out of that 150 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] humans contribute 0.3 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] (based upon EPA's estimate that humans contribute 36 billion tons of CO2 world-wide). A paltry 0.2% of the total atmospheric CO2, which is itself only 0.04% of the total atmosphere.

It has become as esoteric as the old Chinese "Butterfly Effect," where a butterfly flaps its wings in one part of the world causing a hurricane in another part of the world, and just as ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No I am pointing out that the basis for the concept of a greenhouse gas is that Earth is ~33 C warmer than it would be if the atmsphere
was completely transparent. This is also the bases of the long term 150 Wm-2 imbalance of energy out vs energy in.
Using the criteria that has been around for over a century, let's us see the equalized temperature response to an energy imbalance.
BTW of the 33 C, somewhere between 9 and 26% is attributable to CO2,
Calculating the greenhouse effect << RealClimate
of which CO2 on its own is between 9 and 26% (op cit)
Click to expand...
One needs to be at the high end of that range for 2XCO2 to be equal to 3.71 Wm-2, yet there is plenty of uncertainty
as to the percentage contribution from CO2.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No it couldn't. The words "climate-warming trends" refer to a climate that is trending toward the warm side. Not a trend in how climate temperature is being reported.



Would you believe that, back in the day, I got into a great many very long debates with posters who steadfastly refused to believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?



If I understand your notations correctly, you seem to be assuming that the relationship between total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere and average ambient temperature is linear. That doesn't seem like a very good assumption to me.
Click to expand...
Of course it could, the simple change from analog to digital thermometers (High-low sampling, vs hour or second sampling)
could produce the observed warming. That would have to be included in Human activity.

CO2 can absorb photons between 13.5 and 16 um near sea level, the range get thinner as pressures drop,
Adding CO2 will shorten the mean free path of IR photons in the absorption window, but test run for missile research in the
50's and 60's, show near 100% absorption of 13.5 to 16 um at 10 miles.

The response was already logarithmic, i.e CO2 is measured on doubling curve, but the ratio of warming to energy imbalance is linear,
as shown in the American Chemical Society formula.
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
ΔT ≈ Tp ΔF/[4(1 – α)Save] ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] ΔF (for Tp ≈ 288 Κ)
the .3K X Wm-2, describes a linear relationship.
CO2 is measures in parts per million volume not mass!
 
Tim the plumber said:
If all the rivers of the world follow an obvious pattern of a reasonable relaionship between width of river and flow rate, allowing for deeper rivers having even more flow rate, and the only place where this does not apply and is in fact out of whack by a factor of 200 or more, is Greenland why do you think I am wrong?

Because you want to. And your priests said so.
Click to expand...

I think you're ignorant of the flows of rivers in Greenland, because you are. And if it's a competition between whose numbers to trust, you sitting a home looking at Google Earth images, or those on the ground measuring flows, I'll go with the people doing the work, not ignoramuses making WAGs at home.
 
PoS said:
I could care less about your stupid anecdotes or who your wife's cousin is. You have once again failed to prove the petition is false. Keep failing.
Click to expand...

The anecdotes illustrated my point, and served a purpose. But OK, forget that part. Here's the rest you ignored:

LOL, having an undergrad or graduate degree in something vaguely sciency doesn't make one a "scientist." And having a degree in, say, chemistry and even being a scientist whose field is in chemistry does not make one qualified to opine on AGW unless the person is actively engaged in research on, you know, climate issues!
...
What's a mystery is why you keep digging this hole for yourself. Even if we accept the "scientist" moniker, which is stupid as hell, then 99.7% of all "scientists" in America didn't sign that stupid petition, which we can then conclude means they're on board with the 'consensus' on AGW!!!
 
JasperL said:
I think you're ignorant of the flows of rivers in Greenland, because you are. And if it's a competition between whose numbers to trust, you sitting a home looking at Google Earth images, or those on the ground measuring flows, I'll go with the people doing the work, not ignoramuses making WAGs at home.
Click to expand...

Never trust your own eyes over stuff you want to believe then... OK.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Never trust your own eyes over stuff you want to believe then... OK.
Click to expand...

It's not what I "want to believe" but what the evidence shows. Your guess isn't evidence. Measurements of the flows of various rivers by those on the ground using methods and equipment designed to determine those things IS. I don't know why you expect them to be treated as equivalents, when they are not.
 
JasperL said:
It's not what I "want to believe" but what the evidence shows. Your guess isn't evidence. Measurements of the flows of various rivers by those on the ground using methods and equipment designed to determine those things IS. I don't know why you expect them to be treated as equivalents, when they are not.
Click to expand...

Neither you nor I can state that we know that those measurements are accurate or lies. I can state that the size of the rivers does not match the flow rate although the rest of the world does match.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Neither you nor I can state that we know that those measurements are accurate or lies. I can state that the size of the rivers does not match the flow rate although the rest of the world does match.
Click to expand...

But you only know the "flow rates" of other rivers match because you rely on the same, and I want to use your term, "priests", who, you know, measure flows in other rivers. So you rely on the "priests" when it suits you, then disregard the "priests" when it doesn't. It's not rational.
 
JasperL said:
LOL, having an undergrad or graduate degree in something vaguely sciency doesn't make one a "scientist." And having a degree in, say, chemistry and even being a scientist whose field is in chemistry does not make one qualified to opine on AGW unless the person is actively engaged in research on, you know, climate issues!

My cousin has a PhD in chemistry and his specialty is nuclear related, filters, etc. and he worked at Y-12 until he retired earlier this year. He knows no more about climate issues than I do, which isn't much, because his entire professional and academic career took him in another direction. My local dog and cat vet knows nothing about the climate that I don't, because he's a vet who treats dogs and cats. You'd call both "scientists" qualified to opine on something both are ignorant about, which is obvious BS.

What's a mystery is why you keep digging this hole for yourself. Even if we accept the "scientist" moniker, which is stupid as hell, then 99.7% of all "scientists" in America didn't sign that stupid petition, which we can then conclude means they're on board with the 'consensus' on AGW!!!
Click to expand...

I see that you and all others in the thread dislike the Global Warming Petition project set up, but not once have you and your buddies showed that it is false or fraudulent, which means you and others are babbling in circles.

It appears you and your buddies are fighting the reality that there are many people with advanced degrees who don't share with your "consensus" (TM), "the science is settled" (TM) and the Fallacies (TM) bullcrap that goes with it.
 
Sunsettommy said:
I see that you and all others in the thread dislike the Global Warming Petition project set up, but not once have you and your buddies showed that it is false or fraudulent, which means you and others are babbling in circles.

It appears you and your buddies are fighting the reality that there are many people with advanced degrees who don't share with your "consensus" (TM), "the science is settled" (TM) and the Fallacies (TM) bullcrap that goes with it.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you address my comment? I see you ignored it, which means you are babbling in circles.

Yes, there are many who don't share the 'consensus' view - about 0.3% of those with advanced degrees. The other 99.7% of "people with advanced degrees" didn't sign that stupid petition. So what did we learn? Nothing. That's the point. My vet might or might not have signed the petition. If he did, why does it matter? If he did not, what does that show? He's a f'ing vet, and there is no reason for you or me to care what his view on AGW is.
 
JasperL said:
Why didn't you address my comment? I see you ignored it, which means you are babbling in circles.

Yes, there are many who don't share the 'consensus' view - about 0.3% of those with advanced degrees. The other 99.7% of "people with advanced degrees" didn't sign that stupid petition. So what did we learn? Nothing. That's the point. My vet might or might not have signed the petition. If he did, why does it matter? If he did not, what does that show? He's a f'ing vet, and there is no reason for you or me to care what his view on AGW is.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha, you are just babbling all over the place....

The Petition project showed that a significant number of people signed that petition for a reason that STILL eludes you. Still another reply that doesn't damage the credibility of the Petition Project. It bothers you do much, but you can't really explain why it does, I know why it bothers you so much, but that would ruin your day.....

Carry on...... :mrgreen:
 
Sunsettommy said:
Ha ha ha, you are just babbling all over the place....

The Petition project showed that a significant number of people signed that petition for a reason that STILL eludes you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so what? 30,000 (0.3%) of "scientists" signed it, and about 10,000,000 (99.7%) of "scientists" in this country did not. If 30,000 whack job YECs sign a petition saying the world began 10,000 years ago, and 300,000,000 don't, what does that tell us? Tells us there are 30,000 people who signed that petition. So what? What have we learned in either case?

Still another reply that doesn't damage the credibility of the Petition Project. It bothers you do much, but you can't really explain why it does, I know why it bothers you so much, but that would ruin your day.....

Carry on...... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I explained my position. Why can't you address the points?
 
longview said:
No I am pointing out that the basis for the concept of a greenhouse gas is that Earth is ~33 C warmer than it would be if the atmsphere
was completely transparent. This is also the bases of the long term 150 Wm-2 imbalance of energy out vs energy in.
Using the criteria that has been around for over a century, let's us see the equalized temperature response to an energy imbalance.
BTW of the 33 C, somewhere between 9 and 26% is attributable to CO2,
Calculating the greenhouse effect << RealClimate

One needs to be at the high end of that range for 2XCO2 to be equal to 3.71 Wm-2, yet there is plenty of uncertainty
as to the percentage contribution from CO2.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the theory, and it is seriously flawed. It is based upon the Stefan–Boltzmann law, which describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature, and that is where the problem lies. The Earth, or any planet, is not a black body. Black bodies are theoretical constructs that do not exist in reality. Even black holes are not black bodies. So it is a mistake to apply Stefan–Boltzmann's law to anything to do with planetary temperatures. You can use it to determine habitual zones, or the snow/frost line in a solar system, but not to determine what the temperature of a planet should be.

The reality is that we really do not know how much, or how little, greenhouse gases are contributing to the warming of the planet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom