Shocker: study finds global warming may be net beneficial for the global economy

...generate clout? What are you talking about? Those are groups of national or international scientists? So yea, they generate clout.

That does not make them political organizations.

 

no I legitimately want a list of scientists and their credentials. you haven't the foggiest idea of whether these organizations are made up of scientists or not because you can't list anyone.

Are you just appealing to authority which is exactly what religious fanatics do. It's not an argument.

Yes.

 

Our roads are full of orange trucks, on their way to the juice plant, like every other year.

 

We? You mean you.

I never said we have only two options.

 

You can fairly easily obtain a list of their members. Similarly, you can review all of the Climate Journal Publications, of which ~98% of those that offered an opinion on the cause of climate change, said that humans are a causal factor.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Correction, that number is now approximately 100%.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467619886266

That was not a yes or no question.

The 1900 to 2000 increase or the 10,000 year period after the last ice age?

 

first to generate means to create something, and cloud means to influence or have power.

This is how religions have worked for eons.

but you don't know that because you can't list anyone or their credentials.

a synonym for clout is might.

So you're saying might equals right. How dark ages of you. anybody who disagrees with the orthodoxy will be labeled a heretic away I'm sorry denier and metaphorically burned at the stake.

the only reason to organize is to generate power.

 

All organizations are political. There is no other reason to organize other than to have authority or power.

 

yes one outlier does not a pattern make. The legitimacy of the claim that it was caused by climate change is just as legitimate as the claim that it was sent by God to punish the US for legalizing same sex marriage.

I'm not saying these claims are wrong they're just unsupported.

Again one outlier does not a pattern make.

The claim that it was caused by global climate change is just as valid in the claim that it was the wrath of Allah for everyone in Australia not going halal.

Again I'm not saying any of these claims are wrong, they're just not supported.

 

I wasn't aware that their was an issue with farming in the US. The other member posted a graph regarding the US Corn yield increase since the 1940s as evidence of carbon emissions not hurting US Farmers, when in fact, the reason for the increase was the use of hybrids.

Impacts of Climate Change on Farming likely won't hit the US the hardest first. It'll hit the traditionally already hot areas (Africa, South America, ME) first before it really impacts the US.

Most round-about way to experience a DMT trip possible.

 

and you're not doing it because you're too lazy?

If you can fairly easily obtained a list of their members, suddenly now membership in some political organization equals scientist who knew.

so 25 thousand years ago when the ice age started ending that's because of human factor?

This is the kind of gibberish you political hacks make up when you don't understand the science. It's also how you're easily manipulated you've no idea what you're talking about or how do you interpret the information presented. Nor do you know how to be skeptical.

Let's leave the science to the scientists please.

Listen and believe is not a logical approach.

still no list of scientists or credentials even though you said how fairly easy it was to obtain it.

Must not be that easy you must have just been lying. Possibly to cover up ignorance.

So the argument is that the increase between 1900 and 2000 is unnatural but caused by man. When did man stop being natural?

 

then you need to go back and read the thread, because that was what the discussion was about that you responded to.

because there's no way it could be your sacred cow.

so the areas that will be the hardest hit are the areas that have always been the hardest hit it's just now it's global warming.

Okay sure.

 

Basically what it comes down to it this whole green movement is about anti petroleum. Because the petroleum industry donates money to Republicans.

That's why these people can say with a straight face that an electric car it runs on batteries is it more environmentally friendly.

 

thats the doomsday theory.. But that does not hold up to historical data. When the planet warms up and the CO2 level is 2-3 times higher then it is now.. life has thrived under those conditions

 

That is an extremely broad definition of political organization. In effect, you've made a circular argument because now you get to dismiss ever scientific group as not worthy of your consideration because "all organizations are political."

 

The theory of climate change is that not that it will cause any of these events. It is that it will make these events more likely and more severe.

If something is naturally going to occur 35% of the time, and a new factor increases that probability to 40%, then it is still fair to claim that the new factor was a causal factor. The same is true of climate change.

If you'd like, I can link you to academic papers about the drought in California and the drought in Syria to climate change.

 

Yeah, I can dismiss all political groups that pretend they are science based.

It shouldn't matter. Scientific evidence is undeniable it doesn't need a lobbying political organization for it unless it's not true.

 

I provided you resources to look up the individuals yourself. I can take the time to copy and paste several of the dozens of research articles published. I am not going to bother taking the time nor am I going to cross reference all of them to give you their CVs. But luckily for us, the IPCC report (the most authoritative and comprehensive compilation of the world's scientific conclusions on climate change) does provide a list of their authors as well as provide links to each of their CVs.

Enjoy and if you have a specific issue - as opposed to these backhanded "you didnt bother to type their names or their CVs and thus you must be from the dark ages" bullshit - then you should say such.

https://www.ipcc.ch/authors/

 

Science is repeatable and falsifiable. One outlier does not a pattern make. You didn't argue against that.

The desperation to label anything and everything as something caused by climate change makes it seem like people that do are desperate.

An outlier does not a pattern make.

I don't doubt a link to climate change. The climate has been changing for 25000 years likely longer.

 

As I noted in our discussion of climate consensus amongst the scientific organizations, the last group to retract their dissenting opinion regarding AGW was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

 

Man made climate change vs natural climate change. Yes, humans are natural, but the amount of CO2 we are able to produce because we have mastered fire and the combustion of fossil fuels is not natural. You did not need that explained, but you can die on that hill if you must.

And the argument about natural CO2 rise versus man made CO2 increases is just that. As the earth warmed naturally following the last oce age, the CO2 concentration took about 7500 years to go up 80 points. From 1900 to 2000, after man had mastered the combustion of fossil fuels and began to create CO2 on a massive scale, the CO2 concentration rose 80 points in 100 years.

 

How many of the currently existing plants and animals thrived under those conditions?

 

That's blatantly absurd. People denied the existence of gravity, tectonic plates, evolution, and heliocentricity for centuries.

The science, which is just as "undeniable" now as it was then, to support them is still used today.

If you were honest with yourself, you could admit that the primary reason you reject the science is because you do not like the policy implications.

 

Read the OP again. See if you can spot the pattern.

 

But you are too lazy to use them yourself. So why should I bother, it's your argument.

I didn't ask for research papers. Why can't you read basic English?

List the scientists and their credentials.

How in the hell do you read that and think I'm asking for anything else?

Because all you can do is regurgitation political talking points.

It's amazing how you people are so incredibly inept.

 

There is a reason you are on my ignore list. You intentionally edited the portion of my post where I gave you a link to the IPCC authors and their CVs.

Here are the authors of the IPCC and their CVs. You were given this link already.

https://www.ipcc.ch/authors/