Over 1,000 scientists sign declaration that there is no climate emergency

[Yes_Minister]

It is just as likely that wind farms are redirecting the path of winds, as it is that CO2 is causing it.

Can you prove that?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Everyone needs to believe in something:

• Man can change the temperature of the planet.
• The Inflation Reduction Act can really reduce inflation.
• The Democrats can find something with which to nail Trump.
• Hunter's laptop is really Russian disinformation.
• Forgiving $500 billion in student debt will not cause greater inflation.
• Electric vehicles can replace internal combustion cars.

People engage in wishful thinking all the time.

Yes, and withing that wishful thinking, they don't have an ounce of critical thinking, and obviously failed in their logistics class.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So what would would they use in the study to show that AGW was a problem?

It's obvious he has never read such a paper.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Man has changed the temperature of the planet. See post #436.
As for the rest, completely off topic.

Correlation is not proof. Such thinking is not thinking. It's indoctrination.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Can you prove that?

Not at all.

Can you prove its caused by CO2? You're an idiot if you say yes.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Not at all.

Can you prove its caused by CO2? You're an idiot if you say yes.

You seem to avoiding the million dollar question, do the majority of scientists believe in climate change or not?

 

[watsup]

So you are telling me that if mankind as caused temperature to rise then mankind should be able to reverse that rise by reducing the amount of CO2 spewed into the air.
You may be right. But that will never happen because mankind is not committed to do so.

You just keep going around in circles.

 

[watsup]

Such thinking is not thinking. It's indoctrination.

You're an idiot if you say yes.

Ad hom.

 

[longview]

You seem to avoiding the million dollar question, do the majority of scientists believe in climate change or not?

That is not the question at all, or at least not related to the topic of this thread.
It is not even a complete question!
A more complete question would be,
Do a majority of scientists think that Human activity is causing climate change?
And that still would not be the correct question for this thread!
This thread is about if Human caused climate change represents a climate emergency?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Please stop wasting your time and ours until you have something thoughtful and serious to say.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Source:

Clintel

Explore the Clintel Climate Intelligence perspective that suggests there is no climate emergency according to experts in the field.

clintel.org

And a PDF copy of the document:

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf

Right on the money. Climate science needs to go back to using real science, not ridiculous computer models that are always wrong.

The people getting paid to do studies are only getting paid as long as their studies keep going. If they say there is not creditable threat then they don't get paid. Independents who don't agree are ignored.

 

[watsup]

The people getting paid to do studies are only getting paid as long as their studies keep going. If they say there is not creditable threat then they don't get paid. Independents who don't agree are ignored.

Conspiracy theory.

 

[Yes_Minister]

That is not the question at all, or at least not related to the topic of this thread.
It is not even a complete question!
A more complete question would be,
Do a majority of scientists think that Human activity is causing climate change?
And that still would not be the correct question for this thread!
This thread is about if Human caused climate change represents a climate emergency?

Okay, that is a fair question, do a majority of scientists believe in man-made climate change or not?

 

[jaypatriot]

You just keep going around in circles.

You just don't want to accept there are skeptics who do not believe mankind will never do anything to lower the temperature of the planet or to keep it from rising.
There is no evidence to suggest man is capable of halting climate change.

 

[jaypatriot]

You seem to avoiding the million dollar question, do the majority of scientists believe in climate change or not?

The question is not whether the climate is changing.
The question is: Can mankind do anything about halting climate change and keeping the planet from getting warmer?
It appears the climate of the planet is getting more threatening.
Is mankind capable of or committed to doing something about it?

 

[jaypatriot]

That is not the question at all, or at least not related to the topic of this thread.
It is not even a complete question!
A more complete question would be,
Do a majority of scientists think that Human activity is causing climate change?
And that still would not be the correct question for this thread!
This thread is about if Human caused climate change represents a climate emergency?

Can anyone tell us how much mankind has contributed to perceived climate change?
If not, then how can anyone say mankind is responsible for what scientists are calling climate change?

 

[jaypatriot]

Again, you want me buy this when conservatives have been wrong about everything in the last 20 years?

Yeah, forget what most scientists think, a 1000 paid shills from the Kent Hovind Creationist Science Institute brought to you by the Koch Bros says everything is fine.

Tell me, what is causing all those rivers to dry up?

It's not just the Colorado River drying up. It's the Rhine, the Volga, the Danube ...

It may be small comfort for those along the Colorado River, but rapidly dwindling water levels across the globe offer a lesson for us all.

www.azcentral.com

Obviously, changes in global climate are causing major rivers to dry up.
Anyone can see that.
The idea that all we have to do is stop using fossil fuels and the rivers will flow again is completely ludicrous.

 

[lwf]

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...s-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

 

[lwf]

Obviously, changes in global climate are causing major rivers to dry up.
Anyone can see that.
The idea that all we have to do is stop using fossil fuels and the rivers will flow again is completely ludicrous.

You are the only person I've ever heard say this.

 

[jaypatriot]

You are the only person I've ever heard say this.

Tell me, in your opinion, when people fret over the major rivers in Europe, China, and the U.S. drying up, what is it that people think we should do to reverse that phenomenon? Anything? Nothing?

 

[PoS]

It's funny how you never seem to provide sources to your arguments. It's almost like you don't want us to know your sources.

What's the point? Everytime I post a link you just ignore it because your silly religious beliefs gets debunked.

But I'll humor you anyway:

False Consensus: The 97 Percent Canard (Oreskes study debunked) - Master Resource

“It is now widely agreed Oreskes did not distinguish between articles that acknowledged or assumed some human impact on climate, however small, and articles that supported IPCC’s more specific claim that human emissions are responsible for more than 50 percent of the global warming observed...

www.masterresource.org

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?

www.forbes.com

The 97 Percent Solution | National Review

Don’t believe people who tell you “the science is settled” on climate change. Studies of scientists show the opposite.

www.nationalreview.com

And you still, in over two weeks, have not provided even a single comment about the SCIENCE of AGW/climate change in your own words. It’s all 100% deflection from you. Your silence speaks volumes.

LOL There are links posted in the OP, but all you can do is ignore it, because you and your brethren continued to deny reality.

It's a fallacy that your title doesn't match the reality of the source site? It is a fallacy that you have refused to define what you meant by scientist? I don't think you know what the term means. That's ok, I get your shtick now.

LOL the only one who is resorting to fallacies is you with your doubling down on the shoot the messenger bullshit by trying to define what is a scientist. The day you stop using fallacies is when Hell freezes over.

No, it doesn't, particularly for climate, and the biggest reason is because there is primarily only 1 variable. Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere. We know what produces it, we know what removes it, we know the levels are increasing, and it's really not difficult at all to predict what that will cause.
We may not be able to call any specific Hurricane, but we know what causes hurricanes, and the warmer the water gets the worse they will get.
We may not be able to call a specific drought or wildfire, and we may not be able to call a specific month or year with a lot of rain, but we know that as temperatures rise parts of the country that normally get reasonable precipitation are going to go bone dry, and we know that some other parts of the country are going to end up in full-blown monsoon seasons.

While the Colorado River is being devastated with a lack of rain, my home of Charleston, SC is breaking records for rainfall this summer, and a city that's basically at sea level is struggling to deal with it. This is going to keep happening. We know it. The only questions left are, how bad, how quickly, and exactly what impacts there will be, and where.

LOL what idiocy. CO2 is not the only factor that causes climate change. Everything from the Sun, volcanoes, tectonics, and clouds affects temperature, but you go along with the gullible people thinking that only an increase in manmade CO2 causes any change (you even ignore the CO2 in the soil and in the oceans). It's like a blind man who only feels the elephant's trunk and thinks its a snake.

So why are those rivers drying up then?

China drought causes Yangtze to dry up, sparking shortage of hydropower

Nationwide alert issued with south-west especially badly hit, as major companies forced to suspend work

www.theguardian.com

It's not just the Colorado River drying up. It's the Rhine, the Volga, the Danube ...

It may be small comfort for those along the Colorado River, but rapidly dwindling water levels across the globe offer a lesson for us all.

www.azcentral.com

So no rivers ever dried up until after the industrial revolution started? What idiocy.

 

[longview]

Okay, that is a fair question, do a majority of scientists believe in man-made climate change or not?

Absolutely, including myself, but that alone does not mean the scope of the Human caused climate
change related to CO2 is of any concern.

 

[longview]

Can anyone tell us how much mankind has contributed to perceived climate change?
If not, then how can anyone say mankind is responsible for what scientists are calling climate change?

The concept that added CO2 can cause some warming, is likely fairly solid science,
CO2 does absorb at the 15 um band, which is open except for CO2.
The problem is, it is very difficult to say is the forcing warming from added CO2 will continue
on the same log scale, and the CERES satellite data reflects this.
Recent energy imbalances measured, show the imbalance is not in the longwave radiation, but the shortwave radiation.
in short we are reflecting less light, not slowing the outbound infrared light.
The outbound longwave radiation, which should go down as CO2 increases, is instead increasing.
Surface Irradiances of Edition 4.0 Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Data Product

the global annual mean surface net shortwave irradiance is 165 ± 6 W m−2 and global annual mean net longwave irradiance is approximately −53 W m−2 (Stephens et al. 2012), where a positive value indicates net energy deposition to the surface.

While there is little uncertainty that Human activity is changing the climate,
there is a lot of uncertainty as to how much warming each activity is causing!
Addressing only CO2 emissions, is unlikely to solve our actual problem, which is energy sustainability.

 

[watsup]

The question is not whether the climate is changing.
The question is: Can mankind do anything about halting climate change and keeping the planet from getting warmer?
It appears the climate of the planet is getting more threatening.
Is mankind capable of or committed to doing something about it?

Yes.

 

[watsup]

silly religious beliefs

doubling down on the shoot the messenger bullshit

what idiocy

It's like a blind man who only feels the elephant's trunk and thinks its a snake.

So there we have the “discussion” from PoS: one ad hom after another with literally ZERO discussion. Of the SCIENCE of the present global warming/climate change. Why is he even on a discussion format if he doesn’t want to discuss?