Fossil fuel companies believes in manmade global warming (1 Viewer)

[longview]

You can’t seriously compare action against manmade global warming with eugenics. Also, history is full of example their inaction lead to huge costs and problems take for example lead in paint and fuel.

That at the same time the study of manmade global warming and its effects isn’t a new scientific field. That scientific studies have been made for many decades. Also, the last report from IPCC is a monumental report with hundreds of contributing scientists, that are leading in their fields, and with 12 000 citations.

I can and did, eugenics was an accepted science with advance degrees conferred at many universities.
It was based on a flawed ideology, and was cast into the trash bin of history when invalidated.
While the Physics of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is solid, the climates sensitivity to the added CO2 is highly uncertain.
The vast bulk of the IPCC reports "are what if" scenarios, predicated on high climate sensitivity combined with high CO2 emission rates.
Many of the actual climate scientist who worked on IPCC AR5, felt the need to send a letter to the editor of Nature,
because their findings were not reflected in the final report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C

When the Scientist working on the IPCC report find a most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 °C,
yet the alarmist continue with the demands for immediate action, their motives become suspect.
I think, long term that AGW will end up in the same trash bin as eugenics, and it should.

 

[Jack Hays]

Alarmism
[h=1]Bill Nye: “I am a Failure”[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Bill Nye seems to think he has failed to reach people with his demand for urgent action on climate change, but he blames others for creating the conditions which led to his failure. Bill Nye on his climate change education efforts: “I am a failure” “The Science Guy” looks back…

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I can and did, eugenics was an accepted science with advance degrees conferred at many universities.
It was based on a flawed ideology, and was cast into the trash bin of history when invalidated.
While the Physics of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is solid, the climates sensitivity to the added CO2 is highly uncertain.
The vast bulk of the IPCC reports "are what if" scenarios, predicated on high climate sensitivity combined with high CO2 emission rates.
Many of the actual climate scientist who worked on IPCC AR5, felt the need to send a letter to the editor of Nature,
because their findings were not reflected in the final report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

When the Scientist working on the IPCC report find a most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 °C,
yet the alarmist continue with the demands for immediate action, their motives become suspect.
I think, long term that AGW will end up in the same trash bin as eugenics, and it should.

I can and did, eugenics was an accepted science with advance degrees conferred at many universities.
It was based on a flawed ideology, and was cast into the trash bin of history when invalidated.
While the Physics of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is solid, the climates sensitivity to the added CO2 is highly uncertain.
The vast bulk of the IPCC reports "are what if" scenarios, predicated on high climate sensitivity combined with high CO2 emission rates.
Many of the actual climate scientist who worked on IPCC AR5, felt the need to send a letter to the editor of Nature,
because their findings were not reflected in the final report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

When the Scientist working on the IPCC report find a most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 °C,
yet the alarmist continue with the demands for immediate action, their motives become suspect.
I think, long term that AGW will end up in the same trash bin as eugenics, and it should.

The evidences and consesus are so strong for the negative effect of manmade global waring that even the fossil fuel companies believes in it. While thankfully it was a lot less scientific consensus regarding eugenics. Also, we have many examples of the huge cost of inaction, take for example lead in paint and petrol.

It would also be interesting if you could present the study or report that you believe best show that no action is needed regarding manmade global warming.

That the study you presented instead say that a doubling of C02 from pre-industrial level will mostly likely lead to an increase in temperature of 2 degrees Celsius and could be as much as 3.9 degrees Celsius. While at the same time nowhere in the study it states that such increase will not have a huge negative effect.

 

[longview]

The evidences and consesus are so strong for the negative effect of manmade global waring that even the fossil fuel companies believes in it. While thankfully it was a lot less scientific consensus regarding eugenics. Also, we have many examples of the huge cost of inaction, take for example lead in paint and petrol.

It would also be interesting if you could present the study or report that you believe best show that no action is needed regarding manmade global warming.

That the study you presented instead say that a doubling of C02 from pre-industrial level will mostly likely lead to an increase in temperature of 2 degrees Celsius and could be as much as 3.9 degrees Celsius. While at the same time nowhere in the study it states that such increase will not have a huge negative effect.

If You want to include the tails of a study, you should include both ends.
1.2–3.9 °C, so the 1.2 °C is just as likely as the 3.9 °C, but if we discuss the 2°C we also have to discuss if we can actually achieve the first doubling of CO2,
as well as the 180 or so years it would take. (starting in 1880).
I think we will stop using oil for fuel within a decade, and at the current emission rate, it would take 50 years to get to 560 ppm.