Climate Change denial vs History

You don't even know what THEIR position is other than hysterical activist false claims.

 

OOOOh! You is Funeee!!

Cato until 2015 was one of the leading sceptic sites - now it is saying yes it is happening but if we put lots and lots of money into technology we will stop it. It blows with the wind and it will be interesting to see what it says now Trump is in power

 

Is MIT's Atmospheric physicist Richard S. Lindzen guilty of some type of heresy, since he's called bullshit on alarmism?

 

No I am suggesting there is a conflict of interest

Same as if a research paper on the efficacy of a drug was published by the drug company making it. It might be valid but the very association and possible conflict make it suspect

But hey! One of the pirinciple claims against the enormous (that means the same as huge for Trump supporters) body of work supporting the AGW hypothesis is that scientists only have made these findings to get government grants - which has never been proven - meanwhile those with clear ties and funding from Big Oil seem to be held above reproach

 

Has he published a peer reviewed paper citing that?

 

Yeah but what can you expect from a cat!

 

I don't see how she has a conflict of interest. To her hurricane customer .... what conflict due to her research can there be?

To academia, what conflict since they know she has a company doing forecasts?

I don't understand your claim of conflict of interest.

You have told man is not in charge of climate and you cooked your goose when you did that. So I am not worried at all about man.

 

He has a large body of work of peer review articles.

 

That was not my question - how many peer reviewed papers has he published refuting that a) climate change is not happening and b) it is not caused by man

 

You said man can't control climate. If he has no control, he has no effect.

 

Is this supposed to have anything to do with what I wrote? All I see is babbling about Popper, Kuhn, 2016 elections, Scientific Method ... None of it related to anything in the post you respond to. I'm afraid you're loosing it

 

The answer to that question is right next to the word "hook"

Ok, if you believe that Climate Change is Factually Correct but oppose public policy to deal with it, you have provided RPA1 with the answer to his question.

Soooo ... "the Scientific method works by proving the majority of respected scientists wrong"

Great!

Please come back in the morning on this one. Make sure you take your coffee strong. And, by all means, hydrate!

 

Still your response has nothing to do with what you are responding to.

However, on everything following the first sentence, I actually agree with you, for the most part. Only problem I see is that, what you call the, "alarmist assessment"... you just made it up, didn't you?. I have never heard anybody hold that position.

 

And I stand by that but that is not what I asked nor is it anywhere near what my debating points are

 

Yes - and the Koch Brothers also donated $25M to the United Negro College Fund.

BTW, Eric Hoffer gave the commencement in 1971 at Michigan Tech the year I graduated with a BSChemE. That was a special privilege hearing him speak.

 

Funny stuff that. And sad that all you have is to attack one of the authorities in climate science.

One paper on climate science ??

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/onlinepapers.html

 

Cato's authority on climate science is Dr. Patrick Michaels, author of "Lukewarming." When you visit the Cato Site to confirm this try using the MAGICC calculator.

 

Your post is devoid of the Scientific Method. Unseemly coming from a proponent of Popper and Kuhn.

 

That is what's behind the alarmist position. Go to a book signing sometime and listen to the questions. They inevitably come to position that the environment is more important than human welfare and that one way to solve that is to limit the birthrate of human beings. The alarmist movement is rife with people holding that ultimate belief that humans are basically liabilities in the quest to protect the environment.

 

Eric Hoffer was a local "street philosopher" that has influenced many.

May I ask you. Since CO2 is a heavier than Air gas, why would it do much to warm earth since it would hang next to earth? Where as it turns out, plants make excellent use of it.

 

Deal with WHAT exactly? AGW or climate change? The climate changes no matter what....You guys try to link it to human involvement but have yet to come up with a repeatable experiment that would support your claims.

Of course the climate is changing....it always has...no matter what we do about it.

No they are skeptical of junk science and climate 'models' that never actually predict real world events.

Again, no one denies that the climate changes. That's a cheap obfuscation.

Let me get this straight....Climate change has nothing to do with the Earth's climate? What planet then DOES it represent then? Mars?

You have no scientific evidence unless you can control world climate in verifiable, repeatable experiments. You live in the world of conjecture built upon temperature data that has been contaminated by human hand. And, you don't even realize it.

'Climate Change' (which you curiously capitalized) just means that climate changes. Seems to me that today, it has become a religion....

 

Gas stratification does occur in stagnant environments where there is no bulk gas movements - aka winds. Here's a good explanation:

http://chemdaq.blogspot.com/2012/09/gas-stratification-is-not-relevant-to.html

 

No one paper sceptical there is a difference you know

 

Put meet kettle

I would be happy to see basic academic behaviour - yet to see that

 

Curry writes scientific papers.