Do you think that global warming is real or just a con job by 97% of climate scientists who are funded by environmentalist against the trillion dollar energy industry who can't afford any scientists?
The way you are phrasing the question shows that you don't really understand the issue. The question is not about if the climate is changing or not, the question is if it is changing specifically due to the actions of man or if it is a natural process and the contributions of man are only one tiny factor. The other question is if there is actually any way the actions of man can stop the climate from changing for the first time in earth's history. Since there is no consensus whatsoever on those issues, it really does come down to a policy debate.
Climat skeptics, what is the effect of the gigatons of greenhouse gases being released annually into our atmosphere by humans in addition to the natural climate factors?
Humor us and answer the question instead of dodging it. Do you think the planet is warming from Co2 emissions or not? Do you think scientists are all lying or that you know more about science then they do? Which one is it? Are you smarter than scientists or do you think thousands of scientists are committing fraud as their are funded by the very rich and powerful Sierra Club?
Did you actually read what you are responding to? It sounds a lot like you didn't. Here, I'll help. There is no question that the planet is warming and that CO2 does play SOME factor. That said, there's nowhere near consensus as to what level human activity has to do with the warming or if there is anything that could slow or stop it. I also think that MANY scientists out there are altering or exaggerating their results for funding purposes and there has been evidence to support that.
What's your basis for the claim scientist are exaggerating or altering results for funding purposes when there's more funding from energy companies to show climate change is false? 97% of scientists say global warming is caused by human activity. Are you saying they are ALL exaggerating? And what do you think the real cause is? Sun spots? Volcanoes? Cows farting? Angry rednecks? What's the cause for global warming if it ain't CO2. This should be entertaining to hear.
Has it been so long since this was exposed that you've forgotten it already or are you just ignoring it because it is harmful to what you want to believe? Either way, it's pretty interesting I guess. I've done this with you too many times in the past to keep indulging you saying the same false or overly exaggerated BS. There is not a 97% consensus among climate scientists that human activity is the primary driver of climate change. That's simply a lie.....and honestly only stupid people believe that. What is true, is that human activity does contribute to climate change in some capacity, that's where your 97% "consensus" comes into play. That would mean that someone who thinks that it is a factor, but a fairly irrelevant factor is counted in your consensus alongside those who are fully baptized into the religion of catastrophic anthropgenic climate change. You know better because I've even educated you as to this in the past....so knock it off. As to the primary drivers of climate change, there's literally hundreds of theories.
You do realize that in the history of climate, it has literally always changed right? What was the main cause of climate change before humans were a thing? You have such a simple understanding of the whole thing, it's making this conversation difficult.
You do realize that historical climate changes have been caused by major geologic, tectonic, or cosmic events - none of which have happened during the current warming period?
I know that it's your opinion that the current warming trend, that started before statistically significant human contributions to CO2, is 100% driven by human contributions....but there are many many climate scientists that disagree with you. Of course, you'll just assume they are lying right?
The current trend started a There is near consensus on global warming - and the IPCC says there is a 95% certainty that the main cause of warming since 1950 is man-made co2. Bobby, keep your little head in the sand. Don't have kids though. Because they will curse your name and feel shame if they ever grow up to read the nonsense you post here.
SMH, and that's why people like you keep losing elections. You fail at intelligent debate and then lash out like a little child. The only thing this post is missing is you accusing people of being racist, bigoted, homophobic, and xenophobic. You seriously need to invest in a better play book kiddo.
He fires blanks anyway. Anyway, with Trump withdrawing from Paris, it just means that China and other Asian nations will lead the new technology and innovation around slowing global warming. So while the U.S. moves back to coal and chases jobs that are disappearing all over the world because of automation, Asia will leap frog ahead in technology of the future leaving us behind. Thanks Trump.
Newton's fundamental theories of how gravity works were proven to be overly simplistic by Einstein. And Einstein's theories about gravity were proven to be flawed at the atomic level by quantum mechanics. And any scientist that is involved in this field will tell you that there is still a great deal we do not know about gravity as a fundamental force. It is the same with the left's theory of man-made global warming. Or climate change. Or whatever the leftists are calling their politically-driven agenda these days. The difference is that it is considered politically correct to raise objections and opposing arguments to currently popular theories about gravity. Not so with the left's theory about man-made global warming. And that is not really very scientific at all, is it?
As luck would have it, Judy Curry has circulated the following "Climate Models for Lawyers" memo/report this weekend, where she was asked to respond to four main questions: What is a Global Climate Model (GCM)? What is the reliability of climate models? What are the failings of climate models? Are GCM’s are a reliable tool for predicting climate change? Here are some excerpts that get to the key scientific AND policy implications: [on climate sensitivity] If the climate sensitivity is on the low end of the range of estimates, and natural internal variability is on the strong side of the distribution of climate models, different conclusions are drawn about the relative importance of human causes to the 20th century warming. [on fitness for purpose] Paleoclimate reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere climate – such as from tree rings and boreholes – indicate that overall warming may have occurred for the past 300-400 years. Humans contributed little if anything to this early global warming. What could be the cause of a 200 – 400 year period of secular warming? Understanding and explaining the climate variability over the past 400 years, prior to 1950, has received far too little attention. Without this understanding, we should place little confidence in the IPCC’s explanations of warming since 1950 – it is too easy to get the ‘right’ answer for the wrong reasons. [my emph.] [conclusion re: failings of climate models] Anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose potential magnitude is highly uncertain. Given the uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensitivity and the magnitude and phasing of natural internal variability on decadal to century timescales, combined with the failure of climate models to explain the early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling, I conclude that the climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportional amount of natural versus human causes to the 20th century warming. [On policy and where IPCC may be wrong] There is a troubling internal inconsistency in the IPCC AR5 WG1 Report: the AR5 assesses substantial uncertainty in climate sensitivity and substantially lowered their projections for 2016-2035 relative to the climate model projections, versus the projections out to 2100 that use climate models that are clearly running too hot. Even more troubling is that the IPCC WG3 report – Mitigation of Climate Change – conducted its entire analysis assuming a ‘best estimate’ of equilibrium climate sensitivity to be 3.0 oC. There is growing evidence that climate models are warming too much and that climate sensitivity to CO2 is on the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC. Nevertheless, these lower values of climate sensitivity are not accounted for in IPCC climate model projections of temperature at the end of the 21st century or in estimates of the impact on temperatures of reducing CO2 emissions. The IPCC climate model projections focus on the response of the climate to different scenarios of emissions. The 21st century climate model projections do not include: a range of scenarios for volcanic eruptions (the models assume that the volcanic activity will be comparable to the 20th century, which had much lower volcanic activity than the 19th century a possible scenario of solar cooling, analogous to the solar minimum being predicted by Russian scientists the possibility that climate sensitivity is a factor of two lower than that simulated by most climate models realistic simulations of the phasing and amplitude of decadal to century scale natural internal variability. The climate modeling community has been focused on the response of the climate to increased human caused emissions, and the policy community accepts (either explicitly or implicitly) the results of the 21st century GCM simulations as actual predictions. Hence we don’t have a good understanding of the relative climate impacts of the above or their potential impacts on the evolution of the 21st century climate. hope this helps. The entire draft report is well worth reading. Os Trig
