Is the Whole Anti-CO2 Hysteria Campaign Just a Distraction??

The AR’s are political documents.

I see you behind the times on cosmic rays as well.

Again - what are you afraid of ????

 

BTW with the corrupt data sets we have who actually knows if it’s warming or cooling. Without quality data nothing can be concluded with any certainty. And everything can be concluded with high uncertainty.

 

I don't think so. There are two incarnations of the GCR hypothesis. They both start the same. An increase in solar activity leads to a decrease in GCR flux in the atmosphere which in turn seeds fewer clouds. This is where we split into two possibilities. A. Low level clouds are preferential to GCRs and since they have a net cooling effect a decrease results in warming. B. High level clouds are preferential to GCRs and since they have a net warming effect a decrease results in cooling. Svensmarks and most GCR proponents were advocates of path A. That means the prediction is that an increase/decrease in solar activity leads to an increase/decrease in temperature. And since solar activity peaked in 1958 and has been waning ever since the most widely supported incarnation is that the Earth should have cooled. But, it didn't; the opposite happened.

But that's all moot because the overwhelming majority of research had already suggested that GCRs do not effect cloud nucleation rates even before the CERN CLOUD experiments. Nevertheless proponents told everyone to wait before passing judgment. Everyone waited. And then CERN announced the results of their experiment..."A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere."

 

Who paid for the research ???

 

Corrupt. I see that word used a lot here. When a non-corrupt global mean temperature is compared against a corrupt global mean temperature what is the difference? How far apart are they?

 

I don't know. Does it matter? I mean, you know how this game plays out as well. Contrarians say public interest funding is corrupt. Alarmists say private interest funding is corrupt. In the end it doesn't really matter because science progresses by producing evidence and testing hypothesis against observations. Science always tends towards a theory that best matches reality regardless of who funds the research.

 

The US data shows about half the warming.

 

Of course it matters. Eisenhower warned about the government take over of science for political purposes. And the global warming alarmism research funded by those whose purpose is to expand the power base of government is a perfect example of this. If the real purpose of the US global warming industrial complex was to reduce CO2 they would be focused almost entirely on the Chinese. They are giving China a pass and China is making money selling "green" technology to the west. The Chinese are now however not subsidizing their internal solar construction and are in fact refusing to pay promised subsidies to completed projects.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/12/2...s-warning-government-controlled-science-12219

 

Yet you don't ask that question for any other science.

How convenient.

Being how you're so wildly inconsistent, you're not taken seriously.

As I clearly have a high intelligence and an open mind, I'll answer.

There aren't any. All possibilities have been explored and discarded, because the hard data says it isn't so.

Obviously, you won't accept that, because you've already made up your mind. Not my problem.

 

I pointed out that alarmists don’t answer questions. They quickly resort to personal attacks as you have demonstrated above.

 

Which is clearly a lie on your part, as we answer every honest question.

In contrast, you never answer questions. You always deflect to "BUT MY BIBLE! MY BIBLE! LOOK AT MY BIBLE!".

So, the point it that our side is honest and open-minded, while your side is dishonest and blinded by religious fanaticism.

 

????? You barely know me.

The validity of a claim has to be examined rationally and logically, and doesn't increase or decrease depending on the number of people who agree with it, or what credentials they have.

Clearly above average, at least. The way you're behaving, I'm having doubts on the open mind claim.

Not specific enough.

And you made a mistake. Assuming that is true, the causality would be the other way around: The hard data would say it isn't so because it isn't so, rather than that it isn't so because the hard data says it isn't so. First comes reality, then are we able to collect data about reality. Reality could shape or have a direct effect on the data we collect, but there is no causality the other way around. Maybe your intelligence is lower than you believe it to be.

So, in your mind, asking questions = having one's mind made up? I already said I'm not well versed in this subject.

 

Alarmists - the science is settled.

Rational thinkers - the science is not settled.

Reality - the science is never settled.

 

Here is an honest question. Assuming the science is settled, how are you, or anyone, going to halt the increase in anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and thus halt GW/Climate Change?

 

I think a big problem is with the interpretations people are using for "settled".

In science "settled" usually means "with high confidence". It does not mean "with perfect understanding". For example, our understanding of gravity via general relativity and the microscopic wold via quantum mechanics is "settled" in the sense that we have very confidence that our models used to represent them work well enough that we can make informed decisions. Note that we know for an absolute fact that between the two they make what is often called the worst prediction in all of science regarding the cosmological constant problem. Yet despite this astonishingly bad prediction it in no way undermines the fact that GR and QM are both incredibly useful and can be used to make the world a better place.

I think contrarians are under the impression that when scientists use the term "settled" it means "with perfect understanding" which isn't the case at all.

What is "settled" is that fact that increased CO2 results in a positive radiative forcing on the planet and that humans have caused CO2 to increase from 280 ppm to 410 ppm therefore humans are causing a warming tendency on a global scale. The planet IS warming and humans ARE a significant contributor to this warming. That IS settled. What is not known with perfection is the precise timing and magnitude of that warming or how various feedbacks will play out. But we can make informed estimates of the trajectory of that warming based on the laws of physics and historical records.

 

interesting that governments would engage in such self destructive policies... usually people are motivated to increase their wealth and power. I await your fantastical explanation as to why people around the world are being so self destructive

 

That is not settled.

 

Governments do one thing very well - they grow in size and power. It's like a cancer - the cancer cells multiply with impunity and care not that they are weakening and can kill the person/people.

 

Been done, which is why we know your claims are invalid.

That's a convenient excuse that fringe cults use to handwave away the fact that everyone says their claims are invalid.

As most people aren't liars, the consensus of experts does matter in a big way. It's not the only factor, but to say it means nothing is delusional.

If the hard data contradicts a theory, we conclude that theory is wrong. But here you are, actually trying to say that isn't true. It's fascinating, the logical contortions that you go into so that you can cling to debunked theories that must give you some emotional satisfaction.

But you're not asking questions. You're just declaring that there must be some mysterious thing that we don't know up. You've started out with a predetermined conclusion.

 

yes, but didn’t you point out how government policies are destroying countries?

“These governments will literally go bankrupt destroying the lives of their citizens.”
​

Are you now saying that this will happen AND these governments will grow more wealthy and powerful?

 

Let’s be clear, the data sets that you consider “corrupt” are just some data sets here in the USA.... there are many other data sets both in the USA, and frankly all around the world.... there are innumerable people, countries and organizations working on this topic. As well, the so called corrupted data sets can be corrected

so it is not as though we ONLY have so called corrupted data to work with
And therefore we can actually reach conclusions about whether the climate is warming or cooling... with a high degree of certainty

and, pray tell, if it is the case that the data is obviously corrupt, why is it that countries around the world accepted the science on this topic... given that (as you have pointed out) this reality forces them to make difficult and expensive decisions that (as you have pointed out) will ultimately destroy their counties?

 

countries around the world have been researching this topic

 

What... I thought we were cooling... please present your evidence for that skeptic claim

and, btw, there is a reason they call it GLOBAL warming, not USA warming

 

Which question would you like to have answered.... keeping in mind that not every question is equally open to being answered

 

most science is never settled... you know that, right
I mean, Newtonian physics was settled science, until science learned more
But THAT reality does not mean that Newtonian physics is excrement... just that it was limited