Big Coal Predicted Climate Change...In 1966

You seem to be quite an authority on flat earth theory. How is the reasoning the same ??

 

Based on peer reviewed scientific papers. It’s a summary.

 

Science is all about disagreement. Consensus has a failed past. You really need to look into your assumptions and try it with an open mind. Be inquisitive.

 

Well, for example, I posted that link. It's bad interpretation of good physics. It relies on people not being experts in the relevant areas, but putting a sciency sounding spin on it.

 

No, it's a story.

 

12,000 climate science papers ??? 3000 climate scientists ???

Were MBH98 and MBH99 two of those ???

 

The top quote is a perfect example of how they are the same. The "science was wrong once, so anything I want can be true." Is common to almost all anti-science. also the "teach the controversy" line is straight out of the pseudoscience playbook.

 

Yes, and I would assume they were.

 

Only 0.3 % of those papers stated the global warming was mostly man made.

 

How is skepticism anti science ???

 

Hilarious.

 

So I take it you have staked out a position based on an antagonist position and refuse to actually look into anything or have any curiosity. Are you afraid of what you will find? Is it based on not wanting to have to admit to being wrong about anything? After all that is a trait many humans share.

Now, a question to see if you can answer a question without resorting to dismissal or ad Homs.

Do you know what the alarmism scenarios are based on?

 

Even if that was true. They followed up with a survey of the authors themselves, and the results were the same. On top of that, every scientific organization has taken the position that global warming is mostly man made.

 

That's not skepticism. Anti-vaxxers do the same thing. There is no scientific controversy on climate change or vaccines. But, if you can't beat vaccines with science, you just throw everything you can to try to question the science. As long as you can keep some segment of the population scared or confused, you can generate political pressure which is the goal, not finding the truth. good skepticism is thinking critically. If you are qualified to evaluate the evidence, then go where the evidence leads. If you aren't you have to defer to those who are.

 

I have looked at a lot of them. Just like I have looked at a lot of flat-earth "evidence." I certainly haven't and won't be able to review it all. In both cases, it's of course a waste of time since there is no controversy among people who know way more than either of us. Now, I know your strategy is going to be to say that it's all 100% based on nothing but mathematical models. Even if true, unless you are a climate scientist, you can't evaluate the reliability of such models. However, It's based on many other things, from tree rings, ice cores to satellite data. All evidence leads to the same conclusion when evaluated by people who know what they are talking about.

 

But the science does not back up the consensus that you espouse.

Wrightstone, Gregory. INCONVENIENT FACTS: The science that Al Gore doesn't want you to know (Kindle Locations 1193-1207). Mill City Press. Kindle Edition.

 

Wrightstone, Gregory. INCONVENIENT FACTS: The science that Al Gore doesn't want you to know (Kindle Locations 1211-1221). Mill City Press. Kindle Edition.

 

You've described the alarmist strategy to a tee. Shut up and listen to those who (are paid) to claim they know what they are saying ??

 

That statement cannot be supported.

I already discussed the dishonest analysis of cook. As I said, more than 97% of scientific organizations take the position that climate change is mostly man made. Oreskes, Doran, Andregg, Verheggen, Stenhouse, and Carlton all found essentially the same consensus, so it's not just Cook.

Now, misinformation can spread enough to cause the "controversy" but not enough to confuse essentially everyone studying the subject.

 

I’ve showed you that Cook’s paper is garbage. Cook didn’t even read the papers. He hired some untrained activist people to review the abstracts. ~ 8000 of the ~ 12,000 took no position at all.

But if that meets your standard of proof there is nothing that actual data can do.

 

A petition is not peer reviewed science. That being said, most of those who signed were not in field. There are millions of scientists in the world, and I think they even included things like engineers. So, as a percentage, 31,000 would be far far less than 1%. And again, essentially no scientific organizations take a denialist position unless they are essentially founded with that goal in mind. But, let's suppose that it really is only 70%, that's still plenty enough to assume that it's true.

 

Again, this is what anti-vaxxers say: "Be your own doctor."

 

No, you haven't. Cook also surveyed the scientists involved. Several other studies have found the same thing.

 

Thank you! I bookmarked that. It's simple enough that even someone who knows little about the science can understand it. Kudos to the author.

 

Of course it’s not. But that is your argument with Cook whose paper is garbage as has been pointed out.