97% Consensus Claim Conclusively Debunked

zero
Do you believe that pumping mass pollutants and CO2 gases into the atmosphere have zero impact on the biome as awhile?

 

Well, yeah, researchers get grant money to support political GWers.

 

Nope.

First of all, CO2 is non-linear in it's effect. The more you pump in, the more it takes.

Second, we've been at it for a few hundred years. That is nothing in terms of Earths natural cycles.

Third, the scope of the argument presented by climate alarmists is about 10-12 thousand years as we just begin to claw out of an ice age that lasted 25 million years. This is like a doctor examining a patient by only looking at the tip of one toe.

Fourth, that argument suggests that more than 400 ppm of CO2 and a +2c increase is "disastrous". On the other hand, we also know that the planet was just fine with 6000 ppm CO2 and up to +12 C where the average global temperature was over 90 degrees F. The largest bursts of life on the planet happened when the planet was hot.

Fifth, there has not been a single "man-made climate prediction" from the last 60+ years that has actually happened.

Sixth, science doesn't even truly understand the vast climate changes that happened before man even existed as such.

The planet was warmer in 1100 BC than it is now. So no, human beings have not contributed significantly to any global process and probably won't be around long enough to do so.

 

They have some causational patterns that does look like it is being influenced but most of the topics start going above my understanding of the subject.

Even if we are having zero impact — and I agree with you that is unlikely — I still believe it is in the best interest of humanity and our future generations to leave the environment as clean and unmolested as possible.

 

If a huge asteroid were to be traveling towards earth with the chance of killing billions do we say "Well it's a natural occurrence." or do we try to find a way to prevent it from hitting earth?

The dinosaurs couldn't do anything and became extinct. Man can at the very least try to prevent mass annihilation caused by asteroids or climate change. Seems logical to me.

 

To say the option of doing everything is unrealistic and can't therefore succeed so doing nothing becomes a realistic approach is foolish. We see much more cheaper and powerful batteries coming out for the simple reason that electric cars are becoming dominant. Solar panels today vastly more efficient. Wind gaining a foothold as well because the market wants it. Fusion becoming an option with recent success.

Encourage advances and you might get them.

 

Science. Are u talking about a method of inquiry or a partisan cabal of yes-men? Let's say u mean a method of inquiry. Do u say the globe is warming dangerously because of greenhouse gasses?

Please answer one of these two questions.

 

You say "electric cars are becoming dominant", yet world wide there are about 17,607,610 electric vehicles operating in the world today (from here) and that's out of a 1,490,298,000 total (from here). That's about one percent. That's not "becoming dominant".

 

Now compare global sales last year to the year before and projections for this year and 5 years from now. Most of the vehicles on the road now were built before any electric ones were available. If you really believe what you say there will be not more than a small % of fossil fuel powered vehicles sold in ten years then you will be sadly surprised.

 

2. “Climate change is natural and normal—it’s happened at other points in history.”
It’s true that there have been periods of global warming and cooling—also related to spikes and lulls in greenhouse gases—during the Earth’s long history. But those historic increases in CO2 should be a warning to us: They led to serious environmental disruptions, including mass extinctions. Today, humans are emitting greenhouse gases at a far higher rate than any previous increase in history. (Before you collapse into a puddle of despair, however, find out about our work to promote natural climate solutions, like community forestry and regenerative agriculture.)
https://www.rainforest-alliance.org...MIr_LkiPuo_AIVwR6tBh3yzwvLEAAYAiAAEgLhFPD_BwE

Discussions about the % of climate scientists who accept the data proving the relationship between human activity and global warming is the equivalent of discussing the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. We must move past distractions and get on with taking action to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

The problem is that they lied about the 97%. What else have they lied about?

Also, noteworthy is that the US emissions have leveled off and started to drop and China and Asia have by far the most emissions. We are not the problem, but we are the ones most hurt by forcing the reductions.

 

Nonsense.

Historic increases of much higher temperature and much higher concentrations of CO2 led to the greatest periods of biodiversity that the planet ever saw.

Zero periods of increased heat led to extinction events.

Extinction events were entirely tied to ice ages and things like the Chicxulub impact.

We are at one of the lowest concentrations of CO2 in the planets history, and if you love forests so much, you'll be glad to know that the increased CO2 emissions have led to a rapid greening of the planet.

 

A: On a per person basis the US still is by far the champion producer.
B: To not set an example to the others on how to reduce then the US is indeed complicit.

If a rich man says that those 3 consume more widgets than he does it does not give him the right to claim that they are the problem for widgets shortages. If the US reduces it's per person consumption than the others have a blueprint to follow.

 

Increased temperatures cause an increase in CO2 because as water warms up, it gives up CO2. The question is which came first and historic records cannot distinguish between the two.

 

I read this thread, and it's the same bad propaganda deniers were pushing back in 2010.

Denialism is dead. The kewl authoritarian have moved on to new authoritarian propaganda, like the ElectionFraudBigLie, the FakeBorderPanic, or the LiberalsAreGroomers blood libel.

And yes, the 97% is real.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

This is where deniers lose their crap and go berserk attacking the source. By all means, please proceed. That hasn't changed since 2010 either.

And if the OP wants to discuss the issue, then he needs to _discuss_ it. A hit-and-run "BUT MAH VIDEO!" is not discussion. Summarize the argument in your own words, to show that you understand it, and we'll go from there. Or just scream "BUT MAH VIDEO!" some more.

 

According to the graph in #62 above. It appears that China produces more. Maybe the US produces more on a per capita basis, but the US is more advanced than China. It is difficult to tell from the graph, but if you lay a piece of paper up there and mark the top and bottom of the US and the top and bottom of China, it appears that China produces about twice that of the US.

 

It should be 100% that man causes global warming. Man obviously affects the weather and that influence is most likely warming. That is not the issue. The issues are whether man has a significant part, what is the influence of CO2, what we can do about it and how accurately can we predict it. There is little to no evidence of any of those.

 

Yup. They have no idea really which comes first in what is essentially a chicken and egg scenario.

 

CO2 lagging a bit is totally consistent with the theories.

Orbital factors warm the earth of bit.

That causes the oceans to outgas CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming, so the oceans outgas more CO2, which causes more warming. The cycle continues, but is eventually limited by the logarithmic effect of the CO2 warming.

CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

You can't explain climate with including the effects of CO2. Orbital factors don't have enough power to change climate on their own.

 

The entirety of our known history is about 12,000 years.

It would make more sense to suggest spitting into the ocean could cause a tsunami than it would be to suggest we could have affected processes that are on cycles of hundreds of thousands and millions of years.

We are nothing in the timeline of this planet.

 

There are no natural explanations for the directly observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. Those are smoking guns for the human nature of the current fast warming.

We also know that natural factors are trying to cool the earth a little now. Since the warming goes against the natural cycle, we know it's not part of a natural cycle.

 

As long as scientist are paid huge amounts of money, they will parrot and manipulate algorithms to suit their donors.. You believe that above all else and you'll be the wiser for it

 

Argument from personal incredulity, and thus invalid. Your inability to understand does not change the facts.