I am telling you it is the opposite, the curve is much more weighted at the lower numbers.The variability is in a very steep zone of the curve, it is much more sensitive than say at the beginning. A small anomaly can skew the results much more than the 10% variability suggests. I would expect to see much faster warmer in the near future, 30 years is not much time for it all to play out on the steep end.
Well, because THE SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES ARE TELLING YOU THIS.
Climate Change: Consensus
Expert credibility in climate change
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate Change Consensus? | Weather Underground
About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees. | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network
Maybe you want to argue on the definition of 'settled'. Its pretty clear that no scientific issue is totally settled. Evolution, gravity, electron orbitals..... all are constantly challenged and revised and improved. But the simple, basic fact that AGW exists because of CO2 and other manmade greenhouse gas emissions is not really a scientifically argued point. The magnitude of the effect is being argued, yes, but as you see above, the vast majority of scientists recognize it as a problem, and often a very large problem. And the more they understand it, the more they are concerned (although this does tend to be self-reinforcing, obviously, but thats the case in all science).
Now to combat this point, you'll need to come up with references that show this consensus is not real, but those references need to be from scientific sources. Not blogs. Not opinion polls. Not polls of mining engineers where you pretend they are scientists. Not polls conducted by Mark Morano - political consultant to James Inhofe and now, apparently, a respected scientific figure in the denier community.
So my question is... how can any thinking person believe this is NOT established science? Its pretty crystal clear - so much so that the scientific community is going out of their way to tell you this fact because they keep getting this odd pushback from politicians and oilmen that gullble citizens (often on the right wing...seems to be a trend) believe.
When politicians pay for a study, they expect the result to supporr their agenda, or *gasp* they're not going to pay for it.
Progressive ****s sure love to use "polls" and "studies" to shove **** down people throats - why stop now?
If its so scientifically accurate, why are scientists faking the evidence?
...
Maybe you want to argue on the definition of 'settled'. Its pretty clear that no scientific issue is totally settled. Evolution, gravity, electron orbitals..... all are constantly challenged and revised and improved. But the simple, basic fact that AGW exists because of CO2 and other manmade greenhouse gas emissions is not really a scientifically argued point. The magnitude of the effect is being argued, yes, but as you see above, the vast majority of scientists recognize it as a problem, and often a very large problem. And the more they understand it, the more they are concerned (although this does tend to be self-reinforcing, obviously, but thats the case in all science).
Now to combat this point, you'll need to come up with references that show this consensus is not real, but those references need to be from scientific sources. Not blogs. Not opinion polls. Not polls of mining engineers where you pretend they are scientists. Not polls conducted by Mark Morano - political consultant to James Inhofe and now, apparently, a respected scientific figure in the denier community.
Its pretty crystal clear - so much so that the scientific community is going out of their way to tell you this fact because they keep getting this odd pushback from politicians and oilmen that gullble citizens (often on the right wing...seems to be a trend) believe.So my question is... how can any thinking person believe this is NOT established science?
When politicians pay for a study, they expect the result to supporr their agenda, or *gasp* they're not going to pay for it.
I forgot about that. See the problem here is he took some numbers from the IPCC and then he drew conclusions himself from the data that are very different from the IPCC. I asked for backing of his conclusions and he responded by posting the source of the data which isn't in question.
Why conflate science with religion? Seems a strange tactic when debating science, maybe it is you that is religious about the subject. I am heartbroken though that you think I don't understand science very well. :2bigcry:
They might pay for it. . .BUT. . .the scientist will be disqualified from receiving any more grant monies or contracts. Strong incentive to produce 'evidence' useful to the politicians.
Are they? The evidence comes from agencies all over the world in a multitude of subject matters. It's pretty universally accepted that the climate is changing, that carbon is a greenhouse gas, and that human kind is pumping a lot of carbon into the air. Those are three basic principles that science has agreed on. In addition, scientist have attempted to rule out other reasons for climate change including the amount of radiation from the sun or long term global climate patterns and have pretty much done so.
If you believe in a widespread global conspiracy among scientist I'm not sure what we have to discuss. There is no amount of evidence anyone can provide you because according to you, all evidence is suspect, all scientist are biased, and anything other than your starting point of "climate change doesn't exist" can easily be explained away using non-scientific facts.
Do you have proof of that, or just supposition? And does a specific politician pay for it? I'd like to see this objectively studied, if you have that information.
That doesn't do it. It doesn't even address the question, not to mention that much of what you post is inaccurate.
You wanted evidence. Care to explain the need to fake the data?
If you understand the numbers then you are allowed to draw your own conclusions. That's called freedom and we are correct to do so. If you believe that you should not draw your own conclusions from information you understand but instead only rely upon what you are told to think about them you are unfit to vote or sit on a jury.
To clarify; I find your following of the orthodox view of global warming, or at least the alarmist one, to be religious in nature. I think this because of your unwillingness o draw your own conclusions from information which you say you understand.
It's not faked. You're just buying a false narrative. But that wasn't what I asked you prove.
Allow me to highlight:
Originally Posted by apdst
When politicians pay for a study, they expect the result to supporr their agenda, or *gasp* they're not going to pay for it.
I am telling you it is the opposite, the curve is much more weighted at the lower numbers.
Let's go over it one more time,
70 ppm to 140 ppm 1.2 °C (Delta 70 ppm = 1.2 °C)
140 ppm to 280 ppm 1.2 °C (Delta 140 ppm= 1.2 °C)
280ppm to 560 ppm 1.2 °C (Delta 280 ppm= 1.2 °C)
560 ppm to 1120 ppm 1.2 °C (Delta 560 ppm = 1.2 °C)
Within the steps the curve is the same, much more response occurs between
0% and 50%, as occurs between 50% and 100%.
Don't believe me. plot it for your self.
The information has indeed been faked. I just proved it.
No, you didn't. But your still avoiding the question I asked you.
You asked if I have proof. :lamo
I understand the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased a lot in the last 30 years,Yes I know that Co2's effect is halved upon each doubling in concentration.
You are missing the point I'm making though that the emission of Co2 has not been linear, it is an exponential curve. From 1880 to 1980 only ~40ppm of Co2 was emitted, that's over 100 years. The vast majority of the Co2 (~110ppm) has been emitted in the last 30 years.
And I can say it yet agian. That the work of IPCC is really impressive. That work is based on the work of so many scientist and so many findings, still the deniers can find so little to atack even then deniers use dirty tactics.
You talk about "dirty tactics" yet adopt the dirtiest tactic of all in labeling your opponents in the debate as "deniers"...
AGW proponents have long since abandoned any reasonable, or rational response in looking at their own biases.
Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?