Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

I've seen NO claim that your question is even remotely related to climate change.

There ARE breathing issues related to air pollution caused by internal combustion vehicles.

So, moving toward electrifying transportation can benefit that, too.

 

Do you SERIOUSLY think Cortez published a bug eyed picture of herself like that??

You really get duped easily!!

Yes, we're moving in that direction. However, we need to be moving in that direction faster.

Today, our government gives numerous tax advantages to fossil fuel industries!!

Clean energy hires more people already. New industries that are successful, are aimed at solving more global problems, are economic improvements for individuals, etc., have ALWAYS warranted government investment to ensure the benefits of their expansion.

Yet, we're failing just to bring our electricity distribution up to date!!

Remember that we had our government work to support HDTV!!

 

CO2 is at 410 ppm now or that is a ballpark figure. We continue to release CO2 into the air. We have to breath this air. We have to breathe this air 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Safety regulations state something like 5000 ppm for 8 hour exposure. 1000 ppm in an enclosed building MAY cause headaches, drowsiness, and dizziness. Do you see it now?

 

Uh, that was a meme, it wasn't actually supposed to fool anyone that it was from her office.

I guess you get dupped easily. I'm surprised you are so easily fooled. In any case, the "12 years" comment is all her, she's repeated it plenty of times. Are you doubting she ever said that?


You probably thought this was real:



or this:

 

Yes. I support my view. That's why it's called a debate forum. You need to become more comfortable with diversity.

 

Of course it is. Data and theories derived from suspect sources are facts.

It's out there; questions about the accuracy or reliability's of the models. cherry picking data ranges, etc.

The Earth being the center of the Universe was once a world wide conclusion.

 

Flaws in the "settled science" are not hard to find.
The IPCC CO2 Climate Narrative: A “Behemoth On Clay Feet” …Ready To Collapse
By P Gosselin on 6. February 2022

Share this...
The earth’s history provides the solid proof that acquits CO2. The IPCC’s claim of CO2 being the dominant climate factor is a behemoth on clay feet.

By Fred F. Mueller

Have you ever had an uneasy feeling when watching the aggressive, intolerant stance of the apologists of “man-made climate catastrophe” against all critics?

The overwhelming majority of our elites blame CO2 emitted by mankind to be responsible for “a runaway overheating” of our atmosphere. “The science” spearheaded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for us to us to renounce fossil fuels and return to the frugal lifestyle of the 18th or 19th century.

You might well find you’re not alone with that unease, which is proliferating rapidly since social media giants have started to censor people daring to question the IPCC’s “science is settled” attitude. . . .

 

I feel that it is a waste of time to try to have an intelligent discussion about climate with many members on this forum. I have been posting on and off for 3 years on 3 forums and have never witnessed anyone changing their view on
this issue.

I would be embarrassed to recommend anyone read that ridiculous article mentioned above about how the history provides
solid evidence that acquits CO2. It is awful and appears to be pure propaganda that no intelligent and educated person would
find convincing. Unfortunately, there are both current and past members who would be swayed by something as simple-minded
as this. Some climate change denying articles are difficult to debunk but this article is a waste of time. The bottom
line is that this author, Fred F. Mueller, doesn't try to make a scientific argument. I tried to find out something about his background
but I could not find anything. I provided some evidence previously in this thread showing the historical connection between rising and falling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global mean temperature.

One must be aware that the solar irradaince was weaker in the past and that the Earth's albedo could have been significantly higher when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were much higher than today. One must also be aware that carbon dioxide radiative forcing depends on the logarithm of the final CO2
divided by the initial CO2. The author briefly mentions the fact about the solar irradiance being weaker in the past but just ignores it.

His discussion about corals is very superficial and ignores reality.

 

So "the science is settled." I see.

 

The claim of is "consensus" is false, and in fact statistically deceitful.
Facebook’s “Climate science center” Hypes “97% Experts Agree” Climate Alarmist Propaganda
Guest Blogger
The Facebook description providing additional explanation allegedly in support of the “97% of published climate experts agree” claim can only be described as monumentally inept, completely incompetent and lacking any relevant supportive scientific specificity…

 

More cherry picking and bloggers!

 

This isn't a rational comment.

You need to identify what you think isn't settled. As in all fields, there are settled aspects and there are questions that remain.

And, you need to have an actual reason to believe it isn't settled - something more than a blogger or tiny collection of cherry picked studies without any opportunity for response by those in the field.

 

The fact that there have been mistakes in the past is NOT a justification for assuming that everything we know today is wrong.

You have to do WAY WAY better than that kind of nutty.

Science is designed for the absolute fact that lack of full understanding can lead to errors.

But, again that is not an excuse for deciding that any conclusion should be discarded on the grounds that you don't like it.

 

Actually, I don't have to do any of that.
I have posted repeatedly and in volume that I believe the work of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv is a much more accurate analysis of climate than is "consensus" AGW orthodoxy.

 

The problem is that you post cherry picked stuff without posting any comments from mainstream climatology on that stuff.

That's how personal opinion works, not how science works.

You have to admit that there MUST be science based justifications for mainstream climatology related scientists throughout the entire world to reject your opinion.

The question you don't answer is ... why?

Science doesn't work when it is limited to stacks of studies without any attention to how the results combine to form solid conclusions.

 

Already explained many times.
"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research

 

The conspiracy theory model!!

As for that conspiracy model, there is no explanation for how that could happen in this case.

There are way too many sciences involved. There really isn't any way for one related science to figure out what their answers would need to be in order to support the whole.

There is no method that would cause the scientists in every country to screw up their science in order to match the results from somewhere else. Work similar to your own work in identifying bad papers would catch up and usher them out of science.

So, enough of that one.

>> More importantly, your quote doesn't even bother to answer the central question.

And, that is how it could possibly be valid to PURPOSEFULLY EXCLUDE the results of others. Science just does NOT work that way. It works through full disclosure and openness, not through personal opinion and ignoring the rest of science.

 

Actually, it's the opposite of a conspiracy theory, and if you knew anything about Gunnar Myrdal and his (Nobel Prize winning) work you'd be embarrassed by the foolishness of your claim.
Groupthink, confirmation bias and career self-defense are fully sufficient to explain opinion uniformity beyond the evidence.

 

Even in his own arena of economics we see weakness in that theory.

There is no world consensus on how economics works. Even in the USA we have major differences on that topic among politicians and among those who have Phd's in that field. We have universities and think tanks that have major disagreement.

So, what happened to Myrdal's idea??

And, the various parts of climatology are clearly far more disconnected from a center than are the various parts of economics.

 

True, but it does put into question claims of perfection coming from AGW zealots.

Nothing nutty about it.

Not exactly. Science is designed to question current situations and devise methods to prove or disprove thesis. Like this:

Heed your last sentence.

 

I'm not going to try to disentangle your failure in using meta sequences in posts.

But, let me say that THIS statement of yours did not address anything I said.

 

OK, that made it clear how you didn't understand, so let me say it again:

Science is designed for the absolute fact that lack of full understanding can lead to errors.

For example, one way you can tell this is that science provides no way to prove an hypothesis to be true.

Another is that even with theory being the strongest possible form of truth science can provide on how a process works, science recognizes that every theory in science may be proven false or majorly corrected at some point.

So, with science focusing on proof of falsity, of casting out incorrect ideas, it becomes necessary to examine all conclusions in the full context of what we know. That is, no single paper in science, can be considered alone, even if the authors were diligent testers of their idea and journal review uncovered no reason to reject.

Thus the left hand diagram you found is not complete.

 

There can be reasons to post CRAP.

But, if you post CRAP, you really need to label it as CRAP.

Otherwise, I am VERY likely to attribute it to YOU.

 

Oh I wouldn't disagree that it's crap, but I don't believe you've never heard that she, and other prominent Democrats, said it.

67% of Democrats Think U.S. Has 12 Years to Fight Global Warming - Or Else

 

You should be interested in what science says, not what "zealots" say.

And, you need to differentiate what it is about climatology that is less well understood.

The central thesis of Earth's average temperature rising, of anthropogenic affect on climate, is agreed by the vast majority of scientists in any field of climatology.

And, there are areas where there is an understanding of maximum and minimum likely affect, but where those error bars are wide enough that more study is especially important in those areas.