All Authors Working on Flagship U.S. Climate Report Are Dismissed

[ataraxia]

No but they also do not have any empirical evidence supporting the assumption that added CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere!

They do. The links have been given to you. Your associated misunderstandings about them have been cleared up as well.

 

[ataraxia]

Wow. It is so much more complicated than a bottle.

So why did you bring up just that- as if that's all there is to it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Other than claiming that there are secret things in the bodies of all scientific papers that directly contradict their abstracts, you have provided no scientific evidence to dispute. Provide it, and we can talk.

Have any examples, or is it more misunderstanding on your part?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So why did you bring up just that- as if that's all there is to it?

I never made any such claim.

 

[ataraxia]

Have any examples?

You're the one saying that the abstracts provided to you misrepresent what the bodies of the papers themselves actually say. Since only you have access to the bodies of those papers behind paywalls, it's up to you to show us.

 

[ataraxia]

I never made any such claim.

You: " CO2 in a bottle does not represent the complexity of the atmosphere."

As if that was anyone's misunderstanding of climate change science except yours.

 

[longview]

They do. The links have been given to you. Your associated misunderstandings about them have been cleared up as well.

You have not provided any links to experiments here! Why not?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You're the one saying that the abstracts provided to you misrepresent what the bodies of the papers themselves actually say. Since only you have access to the bodies of those papers behind paywalls, it's up to you to show us.

I have stated there is more to a paper than just an abstract. I have stated that often, the abstract isn't what the paper actually shows.

It is dependent on the paper.

So. Do you have a particular paper in mind, or are you just bowing hot air again?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You: " CO2 in a bottle does not represent the complexity of the atmosphere."

As if that was anyone's misunderstanding of climate change science except yours.

What were you speaking of about proving CO2 causes warming? the only ones I know of are those bottle experiment experiments you have raved about in the past.

If you were not speaking of those, then what proof are you speaking of?

 

[ataraxia]

You have not provided any links to experiments here! Why not?

I am not the one questioning the entire global scientific community for the last century and a half. If you are saying they are all wrong, seeing what experiments show this would be fascinating.

 

[ataraxia]

What were you speaking of about proving CO2 causes warming? the only ones I know of are those bottle experiment experiments you have raved about in the past.

Well then clearly you need to do some more reading. An introductory textbook on the subject would be a good start. All the references are at the end of each chapter, and there are good sample problems at the end of each chapter so you can test your understanding and show you how the theory and mathematical models match up with current observations.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am not the one questioning the entire global scientific community for the last century and a half.

That again.

Go then. Be a good little sheople.

If you are saying they are all wrong, seeing what experiments show this would be fascinating.

There is no experiment that shows they are right or wrong. They cannot prove they are right, and it is their responsibility to prove.

All I can prove is they are being manipulative and deceptive.

 

[Nickyjo]

No need. Man made 'climate change' was not there in the first place. The 'experts', despite thirty years worth of failure are hanging on to their grants and salaries. Glad to see some are departing in the US, we should get rid of the leeches in Europe too.

Ok, let’s assume that the warming is not human caused. Shouldn’t people be studying and advising about what effects the existing warming will have? The text of the OP didn’t mention why the earth is warming, but even if it is only cyclical what is wrong with continuing to do what Congress mandated? Oh, I forgot. Trump and company don’t care about that sort of thing.

 

[ataraxia]

All I can prove is they are being manipulative and deceptive.

OK, sure go ahead. Surely there is more to your proof than just the assertion that they are being manipulative and deceptive.

 

[Sweden]

“The Earth”, in its totality, is the rock you make mention of and everything that lives upon or within it. In its totality it very much is an organic entity. Most of its components, including the soil, fossil fuels, and other components are derived from living, or formerly living, material.

It its totality it reacts to the forces placed upon it. It’s changing eco-system its environment. Whether water ran in certain places, in particular ways, in particular quantities as an example.

No, nearly all the Earth is mde of inorganic matter. Soil and fossil fuels are a minute part of its total mass.

 

[longview]

I am not the one questioning the entire global scientific community for the last century and a half. If you are saying they are all wrong, seeing what experiments show this would be fascinating.

Forget them, you are making a claim that experimental evidence exists that validates that added CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.
Support your claim with something besides an appeal to authority?

 

[ataraxia]

No, nearly all the Earth is mde of inorganic matter. Soil and fossil fuels are a minute part of its total mass.

And that's why small changes in atmospheric CO2 can't have any effect?

 

[ataraxia]

Forget them, you are making a claim that experimental evidence exists that validates that added CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.
Support your claim with something besides an appeal to authority?

All the scientific article abstracts are "appeal to authority"?

Surely then you can find numerous recent ones that support your understanding?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

No, nearly all the Earth is mde of inorganic matter. Soil and fossil fuels are a minute part of its total mass.

I didn’t say different. I said it was part of it and now I’ll add some of its most active part of it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

OK, sure go ahead. Surely there is more to your proof than just the assertion that they are being manipulative and deceptive.

Absolutely. Just look at their scare regarding the idiotic metric they call GWP (global warming potential.)

Look at the fact they claim CO2 warming is melting ice when the data shows the ice albedo is decreasing from soot and other dark aerosols. The science shows the decrease in albedo from soot at very significant levels.

Just look at the fact that they have to try to discredit good experts in their field because they know they are wrong, and cannot stand up to scrutiny.

There are so many facts that indicate they are a scam.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Agreeing studies that Humans are causing climate change is not evidence that added CO2 is causing warming.
Also the NASA link does not have any empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.
The problem is that you do not know what empirical (Observed) evidence is!
The CERES instruments were put up on satellites to validate the hypothesis, but invalidated it.

Climate change have been studied for many decades. With few contrary studies not only filled with errors but also contradicted each other.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

qz.com

Leading to that the peer reviewed studies that acknowledge climate change have increased to over 99 percent.

"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed."

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

 

[Bergslagstroll]

That again.

Go then. Be a good little sheople.

There is no experiment that shows they are right or wrong. They cannot prove they are right, and it is their responsibility to prove.

All I can prove is they are being manipulative and deceptive.

Simple experiment can show the global warming potential of CO2.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075

 

[Lord of Planar]

Simple experiment can show the global warming potential of CO2.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075

That does not show the warming in a complex atmosphere that has many times more water vapor in it.

It only shows the response of CO2 in a balloon.

 

[ataraxia]

Absolutely. Just look at their scare regarding the idiotic metric they call GWP (global warming potential.)

Look at the fact they claim CO2 warming is melting ice when the data shows the ice albedo is decreasing from soot and other dark aerosols. The science shows the decrease in albedo from soot at very significant levels.

Just look at the fact that they have to try to discredit good experts in their field because they know they are wrong, and cannot stand up to scrutiny.

There are so many facts that indicate they are a scam.

Show me the references and quotes from articles.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

That does not show the warming in a complex atmosphere that has many times more water vapor in it.

It only shows the response of CO2 in a balloon.

There is also advanced climate models that accurately predicted the present warning.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Including studies by fossil fuel companies.

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say

In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.

news.harvard.edu