• 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!

Climate Alarmism in the 1970's

longview said:
Again the consensus of AGW is not the consensus of catastrophic AGW!
Click to expand...

The statements ate quite clear for anyone to read. I will allow the reader to determine that for themselves
 
longview said:
Again the consensus of AGW is not the consensus of catastrophic AGW!
Click to expand...

Consensus is silly anyway- it isnt science, its politics.
 
vegas giants said:
The statements ate quite clear for anyone to read. I will allow the reader to determine that for themselves
Click to expand...
Yes the statement is quite clear, that to arrive at a consensus, NASA broadened the statement to include almost everyone.
Let's look at NASA's consensus statement from your link.
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Click to expand...
So what do they agree on?
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Strange, I do not see any catastrophic predictions in that agreement statement!
I do not even see CO2 mentioned!
Hell, Human activity could include humans monkeying with the temperature data, and errors in the collection processes.
Who would really disagree with that statement?
 
longview said:
Yes the statement is quite clear, that to arrive at a consensus, NASA broadened the statement to include almost everyone.
Let's look at NASA's consensus statement from your link.
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So what do they agree on?
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Strange, I do not see any catastrophic predictions in that agreement statement!
I do not even see CO2 mentioned!
Hell, Human activity could include humans monkeying with the temperature data, and errors in the collection processes.
Who would really disagree with that statement?
Click to expand...

Read the statements from the science agencies. They are clear in their consensus that AGW is very dangerous
 
vegas giants said:
Read the statements from the science agencies. They are clear in their consensus that AGW is very dangerous
Click to expand...
Why? the statements of the various science societies are not NASA's statement,
which is limited to that one sentence in the opening paragraph.
 
longview said:
Why? the statements of the various science societies are not NASA's statement,
which is limited to that one sentence in the opening paragraph.
Click to expand...

Then you dont want to read the consensus.


Got it. Thanks
 
vegas giants said:
Then you dont want to read the consensus.


Got it. Thanks
Click to expand...
I read and quoted word for word, NASA's consensus statement, and will do so again.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Click to expand...
This is NASA's complete consensus statement, if they wanted to include more, they could have,
but choose not to!
 
longview said:
I read and quoted word for word, NASA's consensus statement, and will do so again.

This is NASA's complete consensus statement, if they wanted to include more, they could have,
but choose not to!
Click to expand...

We got it. You dont want to read the consensus of statements from science agencies.


Got it
 
vegas giants said:
We got it. You dont want to read the consensus of statements from science agencies.


Got it
Click to expand...
And I do not care about those, your link is a citation of NASA's consensus statement,
they mention the consensus statements of others which are mostly weak also, but
the subject is NASA's consensus statement, and it does not mention anything catastrophic,
or even mention CO2 for that matter.
 
longview said:
And I do not care about those, your link is a citation of NASA's consensus statement,
they mention the consensus statements of others which are mostly weak also, but
the subject is NASA's consensus statement, and it does not mention anything catastrophic,
or even mention CO2 for that matter.
Click to expand...

I know you dont care about them. I know you wont read them.


Got it
 
vegas giants said:
So what?
Click to expand...
If there is a scientific consensus, it should be the same for everyone, correct?
You cited, NASA's consensus page, and I pointed out that NASA's consensus statement was too broad to mean much of anything.
We can look at the other statement, but again, they are not NASA's statement.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3
Click to expand...
This is basically the same as NASA's statement, no catastrophic prediction, no mention of CO2.


American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere,
largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4
Click to expand...

ACS at least mentions greenhouse gases, but again no catastrophic predictions.


American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases,
are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5
Click to expand...
Again the same as NASA's statement, but included a statement about no alternative explanation.



American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and
concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6
Click to expand...

AMA simply says they agree with the IPCC! Yet still do not mention catastrophic predictions, or CO2.


American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ...
The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human
influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7
Click to expand...
Agrees with IPCC, and still no mention of catastrophic predictions, or ties to CO2.


American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental,
social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability
are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly
dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8
Click to expand...
Acknowledges that Climate change could pose a risk, and then says the same basic statement.


The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011),
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014)
that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ...
Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9
Click to expand...

Agrees with the IPCC and mentions CO2, but no catastrophic predictions.

So the association statements do not support the idea you claimed with your citation,
that AGW and catastrophic AGW are one and the same!!!
 
longview said:
If there is a scientific consensus, it should be the same for everyone, correct?
You cited, NASA's consensus page, and I pointed out that NASA's consensus statement was too broad to mean much of anything.
We can look at the other statement, but again, they are not NASA's statement.


This is basically the same as NASA's statement, no catastrophic prediction, no mention of CO2.




ACS at least mentions greenhouse gases, but again no catastrophic predictions.



Again the same as NASA's statement, but included a statement about no alternative explanation.





AMA simply says they agree with the IPCC! Yet still do not mention catastrophic predictions, or CO2.



Agrees with IPCC, and still no mention of catastrophic predictions, or ties to CO2.



Acknowledges that Climate change could pose a risk, and then says the same basic statement.




Agrees with the IPCC and mentions CO2, but no catastrophic predictions.

So the association statements do not support the idea you claimed with your citation,
that AGW and catastrophic AGW are one and the same!!!
Click to expand...

They all say it's a problem. All of them. So let's focus on the problem
 
longview said:
The diurnal asymmetry has not been debunked, it is a matter of the record.
Click to expand...

It isn't the diurnal asymmetry that has been debunked. It is your 3 times faster increase in min temps over max that is debunked. You are citing and quoting Davy et al. but you ignore Davy's results and instead cherry-pick the result from the oldest, least comprehensive, and most flawed study referenced in Davy.

This is what I had to say about this the last time you did it:

Buzz said:
No, the causes of diurnal asymmetry are not unknown. And if you were not a dishonest denier you wouldn't be saying this. I know this for a fact because less than three months ago you used to regularly cite and lie about Davy et al.(2016) on a fairly regular basis. It describes the causes quite specifically and this was pointed out to you the last time you mischaracterized what that study says.
Click to expand...

Here is my reply to the last time you used that same quote from the Hansen study:

Buzz said:
The "they" in that quote referred to Karl et al.(1993) It wasn't Hansen's finding. And it is funny how you keep finding ways to only cite the results of the oldest study looking at diurnal asymmetry that just happens to have the most dramatic results. There are numerous newer and better studies that show much less diurnal asymmetry.

I swear longview... you are one of the biggest cherry pickers on this forum.
Click to expand...

And here is how Quaestio replied when I asked you once if you were ever going quit repeating this BS:

Quaestio said:
When Groundhog Day ends?

I recall Mithrae explaining it yet again to him for the umpteenth time in this recent thread below, as I'm sure many others have too. But it's one of his favorite science denier conspiracy memes that he's addicted to, so he's not likely to give up his 'fix'.
Click to expand...

And Mithrae's comment:

Mithrae said:
I really wouldn't bother trying to have a rational discussion about diurnal temperatures with these guys. Davies 2016 shows that over the past fifty years around 58% of the warming has come from minimum temperatures (fig. 1), with "a slowing or even reversal of the negative [DTR] trend in recent decades." In fact as shown in Table 1, for 1979-2004 Vose et al 2005 found no significant difference between Tmax (0.29/dec) and Tmin (0.30/dec; ~51%) trends.

Yet Longview continues to claim that "the vast majority" of warming is occurring in the evenings, a lie which has been painstakingly corrected literally dozens of times.
Click to expand...

Your "3 times" BS has debunked repeatedly... ad nauseam!! Yet you keep coming back to it. Why?
 
Buzz said:
It isn't the diurnal asymmetry that has been debunked. It is your 3 times faster increase in min temps over max that is debunked. You are citing and quoting Davy et al. but you ignore Davy's results and instead cherry-pick the result from the oldest, least comprehensive, and most flawed study referenced in Davy.

This is what I had to say about this the last time you did it:



Here is my reply to the last time you used that same quote from the Hansen study:



And here is how Quaestio replied when I asked you once if you were ever going quit repeating this BS:



And Mithrae's comment:



Your "3 times" BS has debunked repeatedly... ad nauseam!! Yet you keep coming back to it. Why?
Click to expand...

I know other studies had different findings, but a single study for a limited time window, does not replace many decades
of actual asymmetry.
You have to consider that if the diurnal and annual asymmetry was observed on the nineteenth century,
it is likely a long term phenomenon.
 
longview said:
Do you think it is funny, that you are unable to support your assertions.
I find it mildly amusing, but not funny!
Click to expand...

If you can read those statements and not see that they see AGW as a problem.....that is freaking hilarious
 
vegas giants said:
If you can read those statements and not see that they see AGW as a problem.....that is freaking hilarious
Click to expand...
Like I said, pleas point out where in those consensus statements on the page that you cited,
that they actually say the warming will be a problem?
 
longview said:
Like I said, pleas point out where in those consensus statements on the page that you cited,
that they actually say the warming will be a problem?
Click to expand...

I will let the reader decide. My god you are hilarious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom