Climate Scientist Rejects ‘Climate Change’ As ‘A Quasi-Religious Movement Predicated on An Absurd ‘Scientific’ Narrative’ (1 Viewer)

[flogger]

And it usually means that they have no intellectual ammunition to defend their own points of view.

Indeed

 

[vegas giants]

Indeed

So no evidence? Lol

 

[flogger]

"Since the mid-19th century, human activities have increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the Earth's atmosphere that resulted in increased average temperature. "

Global Warming and Its Health Impact - PubMed

Since the mid-19th century, human activities have increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the Earth's atmosphere that resulted in increased average temperature. The effects of rising temperature include soil degradation, loss of productivity of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So show the study which should be easy peasy given the amount of scientific validation this hypothesis claims to have ?

 

[vegas giants]

So show the study which should be easy peasy given the amount of scientific validation this hypothesis claims to have ?

Do you need proof?

 

[ataraxia]

So show the study which should be easy peasy given the amount of scientific validation this hypothesis claims to have ?

It's not a hypothesis. It's a conclusion. I listed one reference, because that's what you asked for. But how many more do you want? Here is a review article on the subject, with all the articles you could want listed at the end in the references. You can click on whichever one specifically may address your specific concerns.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

 

[flogger]

It's not a hypothesis. It's a conclusion. I listed one reference, because that's what you asked for. But how many more do you want? Here is a review article on the subject, with all the articles you could want listed at the end in the references. You can click on whichever one specifically may address your specific concerns.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

I didnt ask for an activist website I asked for peer reviewed scientific proof that humans are currently driving temperature?

 

[vegas giants]

I didnt ask for an activist website I asked for peer reviewed scientific proof that humans are currently driving temperature?

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

www.google.com

 

[ataraxia]

I didnt ask for an activist website I asked for peer reviewed scientific proof that humans are currently driving temperature?

What activist website? It's a peer reviewed article- with references to lots of other peer reviewed articles.

 

[flogger]

What activist website? It's a peer reviewed article- with references to lots of other peer reviewed articles.

No it most certainly isnt a peer reviewed study because no such publication exists since AGW was invented back in 1988. All the rest is just poltics

 

[Threegoofs]

What activist website? It's a peer reviewed article- with references to lots of other peer reviewed articles.

Therein lies his problem,

He doesn’t know what a decent source is, so he defines good sources as anything that agrees with him.

 

[Threegoofs]

You politics are as silly as your profile image.

I accept your humiliating surrender.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I accept your humiliating surrender.

Your attempts at projection are even sillier.

 

[ataraxia]

No it most certainly isnt a peer reviewed study because no such publication exists since AGW was invented back in 1988. All the rest is just poltics

This is an article published in the journal Environmental Research Letters- a peer reviewed scientific journal:

" A first decision after peer review by referees is made on average within 45 - 55 days from submission, and articles which are accepted receive a final decision on average within 100 - 115 days from submission. "

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

All the articles referenced at the end of this review article are also peer reviewed.

So what makes you think none of these are peer reviewed? It seems like a rather wild and baseless assertion.

 

[Buzz]

Your source doesn't specify the type of subsidy. Does it? Renewable subsidies are highly tax credit types. Nearly all subsidies for fossil fuels are tax write-offs.

Show me I'm wrong.

Tax credits are direct cash subsidied when regular tax write-offs already take taxes to zero. It then becomes money returned in a tax return. It becomes a tax credit like earned incom credits for families. It is treated as if that money was already paid, and can effectively give them money.

You are the one lying here.

First, do you understand the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction? Try this:

Business Tax Credits Versus Business Tax Deductions ​

​

Business tax credits tend to be used sparingly by governments because they are such a powerful incentive. As such, people often confuse them with the more commonly known business tax deductions. The main difference between a business tax credit and a business tax deduction is that tax deductions are used to reduce the taxable income whereas a tax credit directly reduces the tax liability. This means a business tax deduction of $5,000, for example, will only save the business a percentage of that $5,000. If a corporation is in a 20% tax bracket, then the $5,000 deduction is only worth $1,000 in reduced taxes. If the corporation qualifies for a $5,000 tax credit, however, they benefit from the full $5,000 in reduced taxes.​

Business Tax Credits: Meaning, How They Work, and Example

Business tax credits reduce a business’ tax liability dollar-for-dollar and are offered as a result of specific activities. They are different from tax deductions.

www.investopedia.com

Many tax credits are treated as taxes already paid, and when that happens, it can return to the business as cash, like people can get earned income credit.

Now as for a distinction if energy types:

View attachment 67426691

Page 6 of: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52521-energytestimony.pdf

Oh, God... this is just more bullshit. Now you are just moving the goalpost. This isn't about what types of tax breaks the energy industry gets. This is about you repeatedly lying about how the solar and wind industries get subsidized. Remember what you originally said that I called you on:

We subsidize wind and solar with tax dollars. We don't subsidize oil in the traditional definition. They get tax breaks. Not direct tax dollars.

So... you were wrong. Wind and solar get most of their subsidies from tax breaks similar to how the fossil fuel industry gets subsidized and not from direct tax dollars as you keep falsely stating.

Sorry, Lord... it is time for you to quit repeating this lie.

 

[vegas giants]

No it most certainly isnt a peer reviewed study because no such publication exists since AGW was invented back in 1988. All the rest is just poltics

Of course it does. Lol

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh, God... this is just more bullshit. Now you are just moving the goalpost.

No it isn't. I am consistent in pointing out the different type of subsidies, and you only care about tyhe word subsidy. I have been consistent on this point for years.

This isn't about what types of tax breaks the energy industry gets. This is about you repeatedly lying about how the solar and wind industries get subsidized. Remember what you originally said that I called you on:

Nope. It's just you attacking me, just to attack.


Goodbye.

 

[Buzz]

No it isn't. I am consistent in pointing out the different type of subsidies, and you only care about tyhe word subsidy. I have been consistent on this point for years.

That is just another lie. You have been telling everyone that the wind and solar industries get subsidies in the form of money directly from the government. And that all the fossil fuel industry gets are tax credits. And that tax credits are not really a subsidy. But now that I have pointed out that wind and solar also get their subsidies in the form of tax breaks and not direct money you want to move the goalposts in a lame effort to not have to admit you were wrong.

Nope. It's just you attacking me, just to attack.



Goodbye.

Awww... you're just mad because I have proven you wrong yet again.

 

[longview]

Boy would I like to see his finances. It sure sounds like he has been paid off. No scientist worth a damn would claim the CO2 cannot harm the planet either.

Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species​

https://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906#:~:text=It's long been known that,eliminating about 34% of genera.

It is not what scientists say, but what they can prove with evidence!
The question is not if CO2 can harm the planet, but if increasing the CO2 level by 150 ppm will cause any noticeable harm to the planet.

 

[flogger]

This is an article published in the journal Environmental Research Letters- a peer reviewed scientific journal:

" A first decision after peer review by referees is made on average within 45 - 55 days from submission, and articles which are accepted receive a final decision on average within 100 - 115 days from submission. "

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

All the articles referenced at the end of this review article are also peer reviewed.

So what makes you think none of these are peer reviewed? It seems like a rather wild and baseless assertion.

So show the actual study citing human culpability ...... easy peasy

 

[ataraxia]

So show the actual study citing human culpability ...... easy peasy

Haha- you want me to show human culpability in a large review article on human culpability?

OK- I accept you conceding the debate. You really gave it your all, I have to admit. Good show.

 

[longview]

It's not a hypothesis. It's a conclusion. I listed one reference, because that's what you asked for. But how many more do you want? Here is a review article on the subject, with all the articles you could want listed at the end in the references. You can click on whichever one specifically may address your specific concerns.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

The second Cook study is not much better than the first consensus document, but it does refine
what the supposed consensus contains.

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17).

So when that paper was published in 2016 the Consensus was that "Human influences" were the dominant cause
of the observed warming between 1950,(mid-20th century) and 2015.
Notice that no mention of greenhouse gasses or CO2 are made, and the amount of observed warming
attributable to Human influences, is listed as the dominant cause. If Human influences has caused more than half
of the observed warming, "Majority" would have been a better word, but they choose not to use it.
Cook's study in no way validates that added CO2 can cause warming, it is a consensus study, not a physics study!

 

[longview]

There seems to be a pattern among many of the proponents of AGW to view AGW
as digital, (all or nothing). No middle ground or grey area can possibly exists from that perspective.
The reality is that the Science of AGW is very much Analog.
We can see the range of uncertainty in almost everything published.
IPCC AR6 SPM

The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface
temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C.

Yet the proponents of AGW would label anyone who questions statements like a doubling of the CO2
level will cause 3°C of warming, as a denier.
There are the moves of people of faith, not science.
The science is spelled out in the above quote, to some extent.
The total observed warming from the pre 1900 level to the 2010-2019 average is 1.09°C (Not just Human-caused)
HadCrut5
The IPCC further believes (not measured or observed) that the warming from well mixed greenhouse gasses,
caused warming of between 1.0°C to 2.0°C, but that cooling from aerosols, reduced that warming between 0.0°C to 0.8°C.
To make the amplified feedback theory work, they have to imagine warming that cannot be observed, is countered
by cooling that also cannot be observed. The problem with this is that, almost none of it can be verified
in any scientific way. if could be real, but it also could be that GHG forcing warming is very close to the total warming.

 

[PoS]

Again, why aren't those studies being touted in Congress? Why do republicans and oil companies agree with the moronic religion. There is, I repeat a glimmer of hope: next year some GOP chair could call witnesses to their committee hearings to debunk the moronic religion... or it it a communist plot, as posited on another thread?

Another ridiculous fallacy. Whenever you run out of BS things to say, you switch to this, an even more idiotic thing to say.

 

[Threegoofs]

Your attempts at projection are even sillier.

The second Cook study is not much better than the first consensus document, but it does refine
what the supposed consensus contains.

So when that paper was published in 2016 the Consensus was that "Human influences" were the dominant cause
of the observed warming between 1950,(mid-20th century) and 2015.
Notice that no mention of greenhouse gasses or CO2 are made, and the amount of observed warming
attributable to Human influences, is listed as the dominant cause. If Human influences has caused more than half
of the observed warming, "Majority" would have been a better word, but they choose not to use it.
Cook's study in no way validates that added CO2 can cause warming, it is a consensus study, not a physics study!

Again, human influence is not just the majority, but almost entirely the cause of warming.

Weird that you forgot that since I told it to you last week.
Oh, wait. That’s right. You just say the sand stuff over and over again no matter how often you’re disproven. Groundhog Day.

 

[longview]

Again, human influence is not just the majority, but almost entirely the cause of warming.

Weird that you forgot that since I told it to you last week.
Oh, wait. That’s right. You just say the sand stuff over and over again no matter how often you’re disproven. Groundhog Day.

View attachment 67426765

The IPCC could have chosen several words to represent "almost entirely the cause of warming.", but choose
dominant cause, which is a highly subjective word.
But let's consider the difference between the cited Cook study and your IPCC graphic.
IPCC AR6 SPM

The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface
temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C.

Cook's paper

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17).

Right off the top, the consensus, only agrees that the period is since 1950, and they claim that came from the IPCC.
The IPCC is claiming most of the warming since 1900 is Human-caused.
Perhaps the IPCC AR6 technical summary can shed a little light on the differences.

Global surface temperature has increased by 0.99 [0.84 to 1.10] °C from 1850–1900 to the first two decades of the
21st century (2001–2020) and by 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C from 1850–1900 to 2011–2020. Temperatures as high as
during the most recent decade (2011–2020) exceed the warmest centennial-scale range reconstructed for the present
interglacial, around 6500 years ago [0.2°C to 1°C] (medium confidence). The next most recent warm period was
about 125,000 years ago during the last interglacial when the multi-centennial temperature range [0.5°C to 1.5°C]
encompasses the 2011–2020 values (medium confidence). The likely range of human-induced change in global surface
temperature in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a central estimate of 1.07°C, encompassing
the best estimate of observed warming for that period, which is 1.06°C with a very likely range of [0.88°C to 1.21°C],
while the likely range of the change attributable to natural forcing is only –0.1°C to +0.1°C.

It looks like the IPCC has shifted their position, in AR5 they only counted warming after 1950, and are now counting all warming after
1900 as being caused from Human activity. I wounder to what they attribute the ~0.3°C of warming between 1900 and 1950,
because it is not likely to be greenhouse gasses.