What does the American Association for the Advancement of Science say about global warming?

[watsup]

Predicting global warming is as scientific as predicting spins of the roulette wheel.

Prove it.

 

[longview]

That sounds like moving the goalposts. You just said there might be issues with the methodology. But to move it out to the "conclusions" is even more tenuous.

Is the goal simply to bring up doubt for doubt's sake?

I'm fascinated by your point. You take a super-simplified view of a rather complex topic and then decree that the professionals are doing something wrong because they don't arrive at the same conclusions you do. I've done that and I've been quickly corrected by the professionals who inform me of the detail I was lacking in my understanding of the topic. Has this ever happened to you?

I'm not saying you are ipso facto wrong, just that if your conclusions differ dramatically from the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of independent highly skilled professionals who have dedicated their careers to this topic and you somehow draw the conclusion it is THEIR potential error? That's a pretty brave position. Since I'm not qualified to call strikes and balls in this game I'm going to go with Ockham and suggest that it is unlikely that your position is the correct one.

Thankfully there IS a way to determine which is the right path. Submit for peer review.

It is the same thing. The basic flaw in the methodology is it’s conclusion.
As we learn more about what causes warming, the amount the remains attributable to added CO2 gets lower, it is already near the simply forcing number.

 

[Mashmont]

What Else Did Al Gore Get Wrong?

Over time, the former vice president’s pronouncements on population may be more embarrassing than his climate predictions.

www.wsj.com

These leftwing assclowns have been wrong on so much, only fools would believe them now.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Predicting global warming is as scientific as predicting spins of the roulette wheel.

Tell us how it works.

 

[Mashmont]

Tell us how it works.

Pretty simple. Since we don't know where we are in the temperature cycle, the warming could end fifty years from now, five years from now, or tomorrow. Charlatans say they know when this will happen, and idiots believe them.

 

[watsup]

Pretty simple. Since we don't know where we are in the temperature cycle, the warming could end fifty years from now, five years from now, or tomorrow. Charlatans say they know when this will happen, and idiots believe them.

Denier talking points.

 

[PoS]

A good place start is with the IPCC (I know you probably put on your tin foil hat at the mention of the UN, but if you actually READ parts of it you'll see it is based on solid, independent peer reviewed science.)

Of course if the IPCC is not to your liking you could pick up literally any book on earth system science, climate or atmospheric-oceanic science and read about the science. It's been published pretty consistently over the last 40 years. It's easy to find. Do you know what a LIBRARY is? Yeah, you can go there.

OR, if you are REALLY BRAVE you could take a science class.

LOL the IPCC is a political organization.

Once again you have failed to present any sort of evidence other than an appeal to authority fallacy and a lie that science is somehow on your side, even though you have presented no such thing.

Your debate skills are piss poor, perhaps a few years of remedial adult school might be a good turn for you.

 

[longview]

Yeah, except not all or even most sicentists go along with this fraud.

It is not quite as bad as that, The uncertainty in the climate sciences is so large, that any results can be interpreted.
They teach a graduate level class called something like Research Methods, which is about how to write winning RFPs, and
to then present the findings in a way that leads to future grants.
The findings are presented, with the target audience in mind.
Here is a NSF RFP,
Paleo Perspectives on Climate Change (P2C2)
The researcher interested would first look up the works of the reviewers,
and write their proposal in a way to appear like they think like the reviewers do.
If the grant is won, the final report would have to reflect in some way the desired goal of the study,
as well as saying what the reviewers want to hear. But the uncertainties are so large, it is easy to say a finding is to one side or the other
and still be correct.

 

[istodolez]

LOL the IPCC is a political organization.

What about the all the peer reviewed science that makes up the report? (You DO realize that that IPCC itself doesn't do any of the core research, right? The research is done by independent researchers all over the world. Oh but I see you have undertaken an ad hominem approach so I'm guessing logic isn't your forte. Fallacious reasoning. -2 points).

Once again you have failed to present any sort of evidence other than an appeal to authority

OF COURSE I use appeal to authority just as you do! Neither of us is sufficiently skilled in this area to do anything but appeal to authority. I've got a PhD in geology and 25 years experience in R&D chemistry and even briefly worked in oceanography/atmospheric science and I don't feel confident enough to do anything but appeal to authority.

What are YOUR bona fides that you can stand in judgement?

Your debate skills are piss poor, perhaps a few years of remedial adult school might be a good turn for you.

I don't need to debate with folks like you! You are not really worth the time, so sorry! I just pointed out that the science around this stuff is EASILY available if you can read. It may not be easy to digest or understand (especially if you have no real experience in science or education in the topics), but it is there.

 

[watsup]

LOL the IPCC is a political organization.

Once again you have failed to present any sort of evidence other than an appeal to authority fallacy and a lie that science is somehow on your side, even though you have presented no such thing.

Your debate skills are piss poor, perhaps a few years of remedial adult school might be a good turn for you.

Ad hom and denier talking points. Is there any chance you can do better and actually discuss the topic of AGW, per se?

 

[Lord of Planar]

What about the all the peer reviewed science that makes up the report? (You DO realize that that IPCC itself doesn't do any of the core research, right? The research is done by independent researchers all over the world. Oh but I see you have undertaken an ad hominem approach so I'm guessing logic isn't your forte. Fallacious reasoning. -2 points).

They cherry pick the material that suits their agenda.

OF COURSE I use appeal to authority just as you do! Neither of us is sufficiently skilled in this area to do anything but appeal to authority.

That's to bad you believe that way.

I've got a PhD in geology and 25 years experience in R&D chemistry and even briefly worked in oceanography/atmospheric science and I don't feel confident enough to do anything but appeal to authority.

Not all of us feel that way regarding our understanding and credentials.

I don't need to debate with folks like you! You are not really worth the time, so sorry! I just pointed out that the science around this stuff is EASILY available if you can read. It may not be easy to digest or understand (especially if you have no real experience in science or education in the topics), but it is there.

Yes, it is easy to read. So why do you appeal to authority, instead of reading the material the IPCC uses as sources?

 

[istodolez]

They cherry pick the material that suits their agenda.

-sigh-.

That's to bad you believe that way.

At least I'm honest enough to know my limitations.

Not all of us feel that way regarding our understanding and credentials.

Yeah some folks on here get a 2-year from Devry in "engineering" and then proceed to call the majority of experts in an unrelated field "liars" when they don't agree with the Devry grad's proclamations.

Yes, it is easy to read. So why do you appeal to authority, instead of reading the material the IPCC uses as sources?

I have read it.

I know it's hard to see when someone is honest about their abilities. It's what one learns when one gets a REAL degree in the sciences. PROFESSIONALS understand their limitations.

 

[ChezC3]

As I said, nothing buy sky is falling, you just don't understand condescension, you're a denier blah! BS...

I said, I agreed that man played a role in climate change, I went on in another post to state that there are things we can do, things that we know will work, not speculation and wishful thinking based off the "I'm so smart because I'll my friends have said so" mentality we see displayed, but real solutions which don't blow up entire sectors of the economy.

What I get? Exactly what I said. You don't understand, you're a meany, you're a denier, you're a blah blah blah blah friggin blah.

When the Unthinking Left get it in their heads that there's another way, when they realize that all they have to do is be like the water they say is rising up and going to drowned all of us in 10 years, when they look for a holistic answer to these questions then they will see their hopes and dreams realized.

Until then, all they've got are insults to spew at anyone who doesn't drink from their poisoned well.

 

[watsup]

As I said, nothing buy sky is falling, you just don't understand condescension, you're a denier blah! BS...

I said, I agreed that man played a role in climate change, I went on in another post to state that there are things we can do, things that we know will work, not speculation and wishful thinking based off the "I'm so smart because I'll my friends have said so" mentality we see displayed, but real solutions which don't blow up entire sectors of the economy.

What I get? Exactly what I said. You don't understand, you're a meany, you're a denier, you're a blah blah blah blah friggin blah.

When the Unthinking Left get it in their heads that there's another way, when they realize that all they have to do is be like the water they say is rising up and going to drowned all of us in 10 years, when they look for a holistic answer to these questions then they will see their hopes and dreams realized.

Until then, all they've got are insults to spew at anyone who doesn't drink from their poisoned well.

Denier talking points and ad hom.

 

[ChezC3]

Denier talking points and ad hom.

Troll talk and nonsense.

The fact that scientists agree on climate change means nothing. That they can’t work with other disciplines to agree on a solution means everything.

 

[watsup]

Troll talk and nonsense.

The fact that scientists agree on climate change means nothing. That they can’t work with other disciplines to agree on a solution means everything.

The fact that you make false accusations towards climate scientists means less than nothing. That right wing deniers So often claim that no solution is needed means everything.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

American businesses also acknowledge the need for action.

Executives call on Biden to slash greenhouse gas emissions to curb climate change

The call by executives to curb emissions comes ahead of the global climate summit the Biden administration is hosting April 22.

www.cnbc.com

Google, 23 others urge round-the-clock clean energy for federal facilities

Two dozen companies and environmental groups, including Google, urged President Joe Biden to be a "catalyst for investment" by mandating that federal facilities be powered with locally generated clean energy sources around the clock.

www.reuters.com

Google Pledges 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy by 2030

“We are the first major company that’s set out to do this, and we aim to be the first to achieve it,” says Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

www.greentechmedia.com