Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

[pamak]

So all that just to admit that the science isn't settled.

Once you become the establishment you don't give it up easily. It's a given.
And the current AGW establishment are the most zealot of the climate bunch.
They have a lot to lose and a lot of political and media support to help make sure it doesn't happen.

And regarding "I made a claim about the "consensus" within the scientific community regarding the climate and the human influence and brought links to support my point. I have not seen anybody refuting what I posted."
Now you have. See #1021.

Science is NEVER settled. ALL scientists know this! This however does not mean that we do not have a theory which is considered superior to the theories of the "heretics" by the consensus of the scientific community. And no, I have not seen any refutation. I challenged you directly to show list with scientific bodies, academies and professional associations making a statement denying or expressing serious doubts about the anthropogenic factors in global warming. After so many posts, you still have not brought anything. The individuals you mention in your #1021 is not a serious argument to claim that there is no consensus in the scientific field. WE knew from the beginning that there is a small percentage of scientists who deny the anthropogenic factors in global warming Even the study about the scientific papers shows that there is no 100% agreement among the scientists.


Again, as long as you do not provide statements from academic bodies and organizations which seriously question the anthropogenic factors in global warming, the conclusion is that the number of dissenters must be a small number which cannot affect the stance of their academies and professional associations. Now if you want to believe in some "coup" which has suppressed the voice of numerous scientists feel free to do so. But this is a conspiracy theory which I cannot take it seriously! The scientists are more passionate about their field than about anything else. Some scientists are affected by political considerations, especially those in managerial positions who are involved in securing funding, but the idea that the vast majority of researchers would compromise his field because of political reasons is nuts!

 

[pamak]

The claim of "consensus" is a marker for anti-science argumentation.

I think you will agree that a consensus about the validity of the theory of relativity even though there HAVE been scientists who questioned it (and I provided examples in previous posts). Consensus does not mean that one should refrain from testing a theory in multiple ways. The latter IS anti-science. Consensus does not show anti-science. It shows that the vast majority of scientists made an evaluation based on their knowledge and expertise that a theory stands above all rest and provides the best path for advancing our knowledge. If we just refuse to follow any path because of lack of consensus, we will be paralyzed. Right now we build spacecrafts and calculate their orbits based on theories about gravity which cannot explain observations of our universe (and gravity is among the oldest and most studied concepts)

Dark Energy, Dark Matter | Science Mission Directorate


So the expansion of the universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.

Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.





And still, the theory we have right now about gravity (which cannot explain the acceleration of the universe) is very good at sending satellites and rockets in space. Now imagine a "heretic" fanatically trying to argue that the observations we have about the expansion of the universe refute the model of gravity that the "consensus" of the scientific community has accepted and that this "dark energy" is just an attempt to defend a faulty model by making things up to fit our observations to the "establishment's" faulty model of gravity...

 

[Lakryte]

Okay.
Can I assume you never thought to look at the methodology of any of the consensus surveys?
There are certain qualities common among them.
Some surveyed climate scientists and some counted studies.
The requested sampling may have been extensive but the responses were not.
You can't reach accurate conclusions with a tiny sample of polled scientists that actually responded.
Papers that disagree with AGW get excluded.
But the biggest factor that enabled that 97% conclusion was the subjectivity of the authors conducting the survey.
They decided for themselves that they detected an explicit or implicit endorsement of 97% of the study authors that humans caused global warming.
Even though no explicit position may have been taken.
Sometimes the conclusion was based on the abstract alone, most often it was based on what the survey taker themselves decided was an endorsement of human caused warming.
Scientists complain that their work was misrepresented as endorsing the conclusion.
When a University of Delaware professor of Climatic Research, recreated one of the studies, he saw that only 1 percent of the papers that stated an opinion actually endorsed the conclusion.

In any event what you've posted were "because they said so" arguments.
You can't take a reasoned position when that's all you've exposed yourself to.

Which survey are you criticizing? Be specific. What sample size do you feel would be sufficient? Based on what methodology are you determining a sufficient sample size? Also, if you read the links, you would see that many of the claims you are bringing up were directly refuted. And you have provided zero sources for any of your criticisms on top of that. You also have absolutely no data to back up your claim that a majority of scientists do not believe climate change is human-caused. You have nothing on that.

You also completely ignored the hundreds of organizations I cited globally that have definitely found climate change is human-caused. Why are those organizations wrong? What about each of their analyses was wrong? What scientific bodies do not believe climate change is human-caused? Cite them. You need more than 200 to have a majority.

 

[Jack Hays]

I think you will agree that a consensus about the validity of the theory of relativity even though there HAVE been scientists who questioned it (and I provided examples in previous posts). Consensus does not mean that one should refrain from testing a theory in multiple ways. The latter IS anti-science. Consensus does not show anti-science. It shows that the vast majority of scientists made an evaluation based on their knowledge and expertise that a theory stands above all rest and provides the best path for advancing our knowledge. If we just refuse to follow any path because of lack of consensus, we will be paralyzed. Right now we build spacecrafts and calculate their orbits based on theories about gravity which cannot explain observations of our universe (and gravity is among the oldest and most studied concepts)

Dark Energy, Dark Matter | Science Mission Directorate


So the expansion of the universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.

Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.





And still, the theory we have right now about gravity (which cannot explain the acceleration of the universe) is very good at sending satellites and rockets in space. Now imagine a "heretic" fanatically trying to argue that the observations we have about the expansion of the universe refute the model of gravity that the "consensus" of the scientific community has accepted and that this "dark energy" is just an attempt to defend a faulty model by making things up to fit our observations to the "establishment's" faulty model of gravity...

Relativity is credible because it has been experimentally and mathematically demonstrated. "Consensus" is without value in that assessment.

 

[Jack Hays]

AOC says America should lead the world

In committing national economic suicide and sending living standards back to 19th century Paul Driessen 29-year old ex-bartender and freshman U.S. Representative (D-NY) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez received thunderous environmentalist and media acclaim when she introduced her Green New Deal resolution in the House and Ed Markey (D-MA) submitted it in the Senate. It was quickly endorsed…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]"Saturday Night Live could not have crafted a better parody of energy, economic and scientific reality."[/FONT]

 

[bubbabgone]

I dd not make myself clear. When I said it is not just one "study," I am talking about the study regarding the percentage of papers. And in a study which examines thousands of papers, finding a few cases to argue that the author was off does not discredit the whole study. The author of the study did not read thousands of scientific papers. He used indicators in the abstract section. So, I would not expect a 100% accuracy. But even if one tried to discredit this study, he still cannot deny the obvious statements supporting the anthropogenic factors in global warming of the scientific bodies and academies. I did not see any such organization making a statement denying or expressing its serious concerns about the anthropogenic factors.

I asked you again to give me a list not of individual scientists but of the scientific bodies which support that anthropogenic factors are not likely to be main drivers of global warming or something to that effect. Until you bring such list, you have no case o challenge the claim about the consensus among the scientists!

I do not recall where I read about this study. It was a long time ago. But I do recall and read some attempts to discredit the 97% number by doing things like including scientists who are not actively publishing!

I knew what you were talking about. We were talking about the same thing.
Whoever is conducting any survey of climate studies can't take it upon themselves to assume/pretend an explicit/implicit study conclusion that the study's authors didn't.
Both Cook did that and Oreskes did that.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If you thought that my point was that humans can tilt the earth, then obviously you missed the point. The point is that the climate we get is the result of a complicated and chaotic in behavior system which is affected by different factors of which SOME ARE AFFECTED BY HUMANS!

Which, if you had been following, is exactly what I have been saying.

Your naive over simplification and sarcasm do not change what I said. People, like climatologists have TOLD YOU about human generated factors but you have dismissed them based on your grossly simplistic "scientific" "knowledge" and your religious belief in the cult of sun!

Oh really now, get real.

Even you admit that the DRIVING FORCE behind any "global warming" is the heat INPUT and that the other factors mainly affect heat LOSS.

Humans have (next to) zero ability to control heat INPUT but do have the ability to affect heat LOSS. Whether the ability to affect heat LOSS is significant is almost irrelevant - except when heat INPUT reaches a point where the level of heat LOSS is low enough to create a tipping point in the Earth's climate.

If you really want help to expand your scientific knowledge and grasp what I said, start with the concept of chaotic behavior of a system. But of course, you need first to have a good foundation in physics, and math. Then see how the climate has such behavior, but of course you need a solid foundation in thermodynamics and multiple other fields. And even then, as a rookie you will most probable confuse the fact that you cannot get exact predictions in chaotic systems with the fact that you can still see patterns in chaotic behaviors and distinguish between more probable from less probable outcomes...

Did you know that one of the ways of generating (reasonably reliable) predictions on a "chaos" system (which really isn't "chaotic" but simply has too many interrelated variables for the impact of a change in a single variable to be predicted) is to use "black box" analysis - by which I mean that the effects of all of the multiple variables on an output are NOT dealt with individually but rather dealt with collectively and the results of that (now collective) input is not dealt with in terms of the effects on any individual variable that affects the outcome but rather only the total end result change is considered?

In short, rather than a detailed, individual, analysis, a "global analysis" is done. Yes, that leaves one without any knowledge of what actually happens "inside the black boxes", but it does let one make predictions that are (at least workably) accurate.

Let me try and clarify - again:

1. What drives a change in temperature is the SOURCE of the heat.
2. Increasing the output of the SOURCE of the heat will cause an increase in temperature.
3. Decreasing the output of the SOURCE of the heat will cause a decrease in temperature.
4. Greenhouse gases are NOT a SOURCE of heat.
5. Increasing greenhouse gases will NOT increase the output of the SOURCE of the heat.
6. Increasing greenhouse gases will NOT decrease the output of the SOURCE of the heat.
7. Decreasing greenhouse gases will NOT increase the output of the SOURCE of the heat.
8. Decreasing green house gases will NOT decrease the output of the SOURCE of the heat.
9. Human beings have no effective way of regulating the SOURCE of the heat.
10. What drives a RETENTION of heat is the effects of insulation.
11. Greenhouse gases are an INSULATOR.
12. Increasing greenhouse gases WILL increase the RETENTION of heat.
13. Decreasing greenhouse gases WILL decrease the RETENTION of heat.
14. Human being may have an effective way of regulating greenhouse gases.
15. If the output of the SOURCE of the heat increases at the same time as the RETENTION of heat declines, there may be no noticeable effect.
16. If the output of the SOURCE of the heat decreases at the same time as the RETENTION of the heat increases, there may be no noticeable effect.
17. If the output of the SOURCE of the heat increases at the same time as the RETENTION of the heat increases, there will be noticeable effects.
18. If the output of the SOURCE of the heat decreases at the same time as the RETENTION of the heat declines, there will be noticeable effects.

Which leads to the question "If the RETENTION of the heat has been increased to offset the decline in the output of the SOURCE of the heat, will it be possible to decrease the RETENTION of the heat should the output of the SOURCE of the heat be increased?".

That is a question which I simply don't have any answer to, but I suspect that the answer is "Don't bet the rent, your lunch money, and your coffee money, on it.".

 

[bubbabgone]

Science is NEVER settled. ALL scientists know this! This however does not mean that we do not have a theory which is considered superior to the theories of the "heretics" by the consensus of the scientific community. And no, I have not seen any refutation. I challenged you directly to show list with scientific bodies, academies and professional associations making a statement denying or expressing serious doubts about the anthropogenic factors in global warming. After so many posts, you still have not brought anything. The individuals you mention in your #1021 is not a serious argument to claim that there is no consensus in the scientific field. WE knew from the beginning that there is a small percentage of scientists who deny the anthropogenic factors in global warming Even the study about the scientific papers shows that there is no 100% agreement among the scientists.


Again, as long as you do not provide statements from academic bodies and organizations which seriously question the anthropogenic factors in global warming, the conclusion is that the number of dissenters must be a small number which cannot affect the stance of their academies and professional associations. Now if you want to believe in some "coup" which has suppressed the voice of numerous scientists feel free to do so. But this is a conspiracy theory which I cannot take it seriously! The scientists are more passionate about their field than about anything else. Some scientists are affected by political considerations, especially those in managerial positions who are involved in securing funding, but the idea that the vast majority of researchers would compromise his field because of political reasons is nuts!

No it isn't. But I didn't make that claim yet I'm sure you've heard it.

I'm saying as with politics itself, the motivation is to achieve a position of power within your discipline and professional organization in order to promote your position. With science that's contrary to what should be.

How many academic bodies and organizations have themselves performed studies on the causes of climate change rather than accept what groups like IPCC report?
Can such a source be considered reliable if it assumes a result and then staffs for it and accepts papers that already found that result?

 

[pamak]

Which, if you had been following, is exactly what I have been saying.



Oh really now, get real.

Even you admit that the DRIVING FORCE behind any "global warming" is the heat INPUT and that the other factors mainly affect heat LOSS.

Humans have (next to) zero ability to control heat INPUT but do have the ability to affect heat LOSS. Whether the ability to affect heat LOSS is significant is almost irrelevant - except when heat INPUT reaches a point where the level of heat LOSS is low enough to create a tipping point in the Earth's climate.



Did you know that one of the ways of generating (reasonably reliable) predictions on a "chaos" system (which really isn't "chaotic" but simply has too many interrelated variables for the impact of a change in a single variable to be predicted) is to use "black box" analysis - by which I mean that the effects of all of the multiple variables on an output are NOT dealt with individually but rather dealt with collectively and the results of that (now collective) input is not dealt with in terms of the effects on any individual variable that affects the outcome but rather only the total end result change is considered?

In short, rather than a detailed, individual, analysis, a "global analysis" is done. Yes, that leaves one without any knowledge of what actually happens "inside the black boxes", but it does let one make predictions that are (at least workably) accurate.

Let me try and clarify - again:

1. What drives a change in temperature is the SOURCE of the heat.
2. Increasing the output of the SOURCE of the heat will cause an increase in temperature.
3. Decreasing the output of the SOURCE of the heat will cause a decrease in temperature.
4. Greenhouse gases are NOT a SOURCE of heat.
5. Increasing greenhouse gases will NOT increase the output of the SOURCE of the heat.
6. Increasing greenhouse gases will NOT decrease the output of the SOURCE of the heat.
7. Decreasing greenhouse gases will NOT increase the output of the SOURCE of the heat.
8. Decreasing green house gases will NOT decrease the output of the SOURCE of the heat.
9. Human beings have no effective way of regulating the SOURCE of the heat.
10. What drives a RETENTION of heat is the effects of insulation.
11. Greenhouse gases are an INSULATOR.
12. Increasing greenhouse gases WILL increase the RETENTION of heat.
13. Decreasing greenhouse gases WILL decrease the RETENTION of heat.
14. Human being may have an effective way of regulating greenhouse gases.
15. If the output of the SOURCE of the heat increases at the same time as the RETENTION of heat declines, there may be no noticeable effect.
16. If the output of the SOURCE of the heat decreases at the same time as the RETENTION of the heat increases, there may be no noticeable effect.
17. If the output of the SOURCE of the heat increases at the same time as the RETENTION of the heat increases, there will be noticeable effects.
18. If the output of the SOURCE of the heat decreases at the same time as the RETENTION of the heat declines, there will be noticeable effects.

Which leads to the question "If the RETENTION of the heat has been increased to offset the decline in the output of the SOURCE of the heat, will it be possible to decrease the RETENTION of the heat should the output of the SOURCE of the heat be increased?".

That is a question which I simply don't have any answer to, but I suspect that the answer is "Don't bet the rent, your lunch money, and your coffee money, on it.".

The sentence in black shows that you do not know that climate is a chaotic system, and you do not know what a chaotic system really is. I made an attempt to tell you a few things bringing links from NASA and math sites (post #1012 and others), but obviously, you have already created your own simplistic theory which at its core says that "the climate is not chaotic and therefore your simplistic example is a good analogy we can use to evaluate our options." I suggest that you contact a scientific journal to publish your theory.

:2wave:

 

[bubbabgone]

Which survey are you criticizing? Be specific. What sample size do you feel would be sufficient? Based on what methodology are you determining a sufficient sample size? Also, if you read the links, you would see that many of the claims you are bringing up were directly refuted. And you have provided zero sources for any of your criticisms on top of that. You also have absolutely no data to back up your claim that a majority of scientists do not believe climate change is human-caused. You have nothing on that.

Directly refuted by whom? The survey authors writing in a blog run by the survey author?
If there really were 97% consensus there would have been no need to assume the studies' conclusions and use a minor sample to assume they reflected the entire body of studies.

You also completely ignored the hundreds of organizations I cited globally that have definitely found climate change is human-caused. Why are those organizations wrong? What about each of their analyses was wrong? What scientific bodies do not believe climate change is human-caused? Cite them. You need more than 200 to have a majority.

Have hundreds of organizations done studies themselves and what are the details of those studies?
I know that any scientific organization should entertain scientific skepticism.

Earth's climate has been changing in large and small cycles over millions of years.
You say you've read the studies so considering more recent times when did the current warming begin and has it been steadily warming?
You have to be able to answer something like that in order to determine possible causes of warming and eliminate contradictory explanations.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Though the issue of whether there's a need to deal with global warming appears to fascinate many, what interests me more is if this should be done by taxing the "super-wealthy" (or anyone else) at 70% (or thereabouts). I don't think this should be done.

 

[pamak]

No it isn't. But I didn't make that claim yet I'm sure you've heard it.

I'm saying as with politics itself, the motivation is to achieve a position of power within your discipline and professional organization in order to promote your position. With science that's contrary to what should be.

How many academic bodies and organizations have themselves performed studies on the causes of climate change rather than accept what groups like IPCC report?
Can such a source be considered reliable if it assumes a result and then staffs for it and accepts papers that already found that result?

Yes, I heard it (that science is settled). Notice that I pushed back in this thread when one of the posters here with whom I mostly agree tried to claim that the anthropogenic global warming is as certain as the earth is round (the latter is actually an observation).
I really cannot see scientists of every scientific body from every country is being manipulated by politics. I can see this for SOME scientists, but not for most of these people are brilliant persons who are obsessed with their field. Believing such thing without having good evidence is an example of believing in a conspiracy theory.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Please clear this up for me. In studying the climate change claims I have come across numerous claims that state even if the USA does all the recommended preventions ands changes to the rising effects of climate change those acts wouldn't have any noticable effect on curbing the increse. Why is this? According to the studies the rest of the world not being committed to the same restrictions would more than erase any changes the USA makes. Countries such as China, India and Russia are going to negate any actions the Us takes.

 

[Lakryte]

Directly refuted by whom? The survey authors writing in a blog run by the survey author?
If there really were 97% consensus there would have been no need to assume the studies' conclusions and use a minor sample to assume they reflected the entire body of studies.

Refer to the links I already provided. Please also name the survey you are taking issue with and the specific problems you have, referencing citations for those problems.

Have hundreds of organizations done studies themselves and what are the details of those studies?
I know that any scientific organization should entertain scientific skepticism.

Earth's climate has been changing in large and small cycles over millions of years.
You say you've read the studies so considering more recent times when did the current warming begin and has it been steadily warming?
You have to be able to answer something like that in order to determine possible causes of warming and eliminate contradictory explanations.

Again, refer to the links I provided to you already. You first claim I won't be able to find any links, I provide them to you, and then you move goal posts to an assumption that they are all invalid. You are following common conspiracy theory thinking, not reason.

Please provide a list of scientific organizations that believe climate change is not human-caused. I provided 200 to the contrary. Can you provide any?

 

[Lakryte]

Please clear this up for me. In studying the climate change claims I have come across numerous claims that state even if the USA does all the recommended preventions ands changes to the rising effects of climate change those acts wouldn't have any noticable effect on curbing the increse. Why is this? According to the studies the rest of the world not being committed to the same restrictions would more than erase any changes the USA makes. Countries such as China, India and Russia are going to negate any actions the Us takes.

It is a global problem that requires global effort, that is certainly true. The USA does account for 15% of all emissions, however, so I don't think it is accurate to say curbing those emissions would have no noticeable effect.

China and India are both making efforts to reduce emissions. In 2017, China added more solar power than the rest of the world combined, for example (source). India is similarly taking action (source). Really, it is the United States (as the sole nation not part of the Paris Climate Accord) that is slacking off and negating the efforts of the rest of the world.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is a global problem that requires global effort, that is certainly true. The USA does account for 15% of all emissions, however, so I don't think it is accurate to say curbing those emissions would have no noticeable effect.

China and India are both making efforts to reduce emissions. In 2017, China added more solar power than the rest of the world combined, for example (source). India is similarly taking action (source). Really, it is the United States (as the sole nation not part of the Paris Climate Accord) that is slacking off and negating the efforts of the rest of the world.

China and India are both adding coal power plants. Plus:

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rising At ‘Alarming Rate’[/h][FONT=&quot]From the place you’d least expect….CNN Chinese methane emissions are rising at an alarming rate despite recent government regulations aimed at curbing the climate-changing pollutant, a new report has revealed. A study released in the journal Nature on Tuesday shows a steady growth in China’s methane emissions, primarily from the country’s massive coal mining sector, undermining…
[/FONT]
2 weeks ago February 5, 2019 in Climate News.

And


[h=1]The Middle East, Africa, and Asia now drive nearly all global energy consumption growth[/h]From The EIA January 9, 2019 The Middle East, Africa, and Asia now drive nearly all global energy consumption growth Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics Energy consumption in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa continues to grow rapidly, with about 20% growth in each region between 2010 and 2016, according to newly…

January 12, 2019 in Energy.

 

[bubbabgone]

Refer to the links I already provided. Please also name the survey you are taking issue with and the specific problems you have, referencing citations for those problems.


Again, refer to the links I provided to you already. You first claim I won't be able to find any links, I provide them to you, and then you move goal posts to an assumption that they are all invalid. You are following common conspiracy theory thinking, not reason.

Please provide a list of scientific organizations that believe climate change is not human-caused. I provided 200 to the contrary. Can you provide any?

I already named them in #1031. Cook and Oreskes take the same liberties exploiting their subjectivity to get the conclusions they want.
And I addressed your sources in #1035 and from that same comment you didn't answer what I asked you ...
"You say you've read the studies so considering more recent times when did the current warming begin and has it been steadily warming?"
It's a very basic yet important question.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is a global problem that requires global effort, that is certainly true. The USA does account for 15% of all emissions, however, so I don't think it is accurate to say curbing those emissions would have no noticeable effect.

China and India are both making efforts to reduce emissions. In 2017, China added more solar power than the rest of the world combined, for example (source). India is similarly taking action (source). Really, it is the United States (as the sole nation not part of the Paris Climate Accord) that is slacking off and negating the efforts of the rest of the world.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Grist: China Lying About Climate Commitments, Still Building Coal Plants[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t JoNova – according to Grist China is secretly continuing construction work on new coal plants, despite public statements that the coal plants have been cancelled. China said it was done with these coal plants. Satellite imagery shows otherwise. By Nathanael Johnson on Sep 25, 2018 Newly released satellite photos…
[/FONT]
September 26, 2018 in Coal.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yes, I heard it (that science is settled). Notice that I pushed back in this thread when one of the posters here with whom I mostly agree tried to claim that the anthropogenic global warming is as certain as the earth is round (the latter is actually an observation).

and you were right

I really cannot see scientists of every scientific body from every country is being manipulated by politics. I can see this for SOME scientists, but not for most of these people are brilliant persons who are obsessed with their field. Believing such thing without having good evidence is an example of believing in a conspiracy theory.

Can you see zealous AGW heads of scientific bodies being appointed to Government positions by politically motivated office holders or being advisers to politically motivated office holders?
Can you see zealous authors of AGW studies working their way into the head positions of influential public & private institutions that do peer review for climate studies?
Can you see those same zealous authors appointed by their Governments to IPCC working groups where they use their own papers for part of IPCC reports?
Can you see Government representatives managing the contents of the IPCC SPM ... and producing it before the body of the report itself?

 

[bubbabgone]

Please clear this up for me. In studying the climate change claims I have come across numerous claims that state even if the USA does all the recommended preventions ands changes to the rising effects of climate change those acts wouldn't have any noticable effect on curbing the increse. Why is this? According to the studies the rest of the world not being committed to the same restrictions would more than erase any changes the USA makes. Countries such as China, India and Russia are going to negate any actions the Us takes.

Might make a person think that maybe climate isn't the intended target to be controlled.

 

[pamak]

and you were right

Can you see zealous AGW heads of scientific bodies being appointed to Government positions by politically motivated office holders or being advisers to politically motivated office holders?
Can you see zealous authors of AGW studies working their way into the head positions of influential public & private institutions that do peer review for climate studies?
Can you see those same zealous authors appointed by their Governments to IPCC working groups where they use their own papers for part of IPCC reports?
Can you see Government representatives managing the contents of the IPCC SPM ... and producing it before the body of the report itself?

I can see SOME zealous authors of AGW. I do not see it as a result of some "collusion" between liberals and these scientists. I see it more as a result of scientists protecting their "baby" theory. Sometimes people who have invested a lot of time to develop their theory are less inclined to criticize it. But I cannot see how such cases can affect the average researcher who does not have such a personal investment. This is even more so for the thousands of younger researchers who are often coming to the field as post graduate students doing research for their PHD. Now, if someone is into conspiracy theory, he can imagine many things without evidence. I cannot see how in the US liberal governments made a bigger impact in science than conservative ones when there is more or less a historical parity in the executive branch with half of the time having liberals in charge and the other half having conservatives.

 

[Lakryte]

I knew what you were talking about. We were talking about the same thing.
Whoever is conducting any survey of climate studies can't take it upon themselves to assume/pretend an explicit/implicit study conclusion that the study's authors didn't.
Both Cook did that and Oreskes did that.

Please provide citations to the studies you are referring to (as I have for data I have referred to). And I'm not reading everything you post to other posters, so you have never mentioned any specific studies to me.

Please provide a list of scientific organizations that believe climate change is not human-caused. I provided 200 to the contrary already, so now it is your turn to answer questions.

 

[Lakryte]

China and India are both adding coal power plants. Plus:

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/05/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions-rising-at-alarming-rate/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rising At ‘Alarming Rate’[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]From the place you’d least expect….CNN Chinese methane emissions are rising at an alarming rate despite recent government regulations aimed at curbing the climate-changing pollutant, a new report has revealed. A study released in the journal Nature on Tuesday shows a steady growth in China’s methane emissions, primarily from the country’s massive coal mining sector, undermining…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/05/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions-rising-at-alarming-rate/"]2 weeks ago February 5, 2019[/URL] in Climate News.

And


[h=1]The Middle East, Africa, and Asia now drive nearly all global energy consumption growth[/h]From The EIA January 9, 2019 The Middle East, Africa, and Asia now drive nearly all global energy consumption growth Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics Energy consumption in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa continues to grow rapidly, with about 20% growth in each region between 2010 and 2016, according to newly…

January 12, 2019 in Energy.

Imagine how much worse China's emissions would be without the significant investments they are making in clean energy. Regardless of what other countries are doing, the United States remains a major producer of greenhouse gases. Curbing them would have an impact, and would put further pressure on other countries to step it up as well.

 

[Jack Hays]

Imagine how much worse China's emissions would be without the significant investments they are making in clean energy. Regardless of what other countries are doing, the United States remains a major producer of greenhouse gases. Curbing them would have an impact, and would put further pressure on other countries to step it up as well.

The US has reduced emissions by more than any other country.
Are you willing to take the Chinese word for what they've done?

 

[Lakryte]

The US has reduced emissions by more than any other country.

Source please.