The 'settled science' actually isn't, dissent is being suppressed.

Apparently you have no rebuttal proof. Look up the IR absorption bandwidth for CO2 and compare it to the LWIR bandwidth.

 

Again, relates to the absorption bandwidth of C02 versus the LWIR bandwidth.

 

Point is CO2 "delays" very, very, very little of he escaping LWIR, and, as I said early the delay is measured in nanoseconds.

 

I prefer to accept the results of the majority of climatologists here and around the world. I think they know about the Sun, our molten core, other gasses such as methane, moisture, etc.

Maybe I've missed where you've discussed policy. I don't read all your posts.

 

CO2 reemits IR in all directions, including back toward Earth.

 

And, it absorbs a tiny percentage of the total LWIR; Even if 50% IS redirected back to the earth, it's still a minuscule amount and therefore helps maintain a livable environment.

 

The problem is that as CO2 increases, more IR is reemitted toward Earth.

It's a change in the balance of arriving solar and departing IR.

 

LOL, And the latest I've seen is that if CO2 DOUBLES it will cause, at max, approximately + .3C change. Theoretically, of course, since no one has perform any real experiments as yet.

 

No you don’t. You reject evidence climatologists produce through application of the scientific method. Everything I’ve ever posted on climate change is based on evidence produced by climatologists around the world. That’s why what I post has never been refuted. Because my posts are based on verifiable evidence and yours snd Bowerbird post only unsubstantiated opinions. Like the opinion CO2 is like a mirror. And the opinion electromagnetic waves are heat. Both conflict with known science.

I’ve posted policy to you directly. Perhaps you didn’t read them. Too much science in my posts to suit you. I get it. You would rather read unsubstantiated opinions of journalists and politicians.

 

His argument seems to be "if experts whose jobs and professional standing depends on supporting the approved theories, I have to agree with them"
The Climate Disaster Cult accepts no variance.

 

You're trying to make a living off of minutia.

CO2 does reflect a percent of IR back toward Earth by absorbing it and then reemitting it. Whining about the terminology in that is ridiculous.

I'm not interested in studies you pick and choose, because they don't include comment from the greater field of climatology on how those studies fit with other evidence. One can always find studies that look like they might be contrarian.

 

This is a claim of conspiracy.

The field of climatology is far too diverse and is studied by far too many scientists for a conspiracy to exist.

 

Wait! Didn't you just claim that there was strong agreement on AGW? How does that show diversity? Why are authors claiming their papers are being refused by publications like Science and Nature if they question AGW's role?

If you get out of your Barbie house and look at the real world you're discover that in many cases the blend of climatology and politics is heavily weighted towards politics. IPCC makes no bones that its goals and efforts beyond scientific discover, comprise social issues, equity, and other wokeness ambitions.

 

In fact, they say the exact opposite.

 

Here we're seeing the dunning Kruger effect play out.

If you ever wonder why I don't give sources it's because of this. You're doing exactly what religious people trying to discredit people way above your station because they don't affirm your beliefs.

Tell me climatechangism is a religion without telling me it's a religion.

 

You didn't have a point. You just whined about someone not having the proper title to debunk your orthodoxy.

 

The sentence doesn't make sense to me science is settled? Science is an endeavor for knowledge if the science is settled it's knowledge. For example the science of determining the shape of the Earth in general has been completed so the Earth being a spherical shape is knowledge it isn't science anymore it was science before we knew.

Anybody that says the face science is settled automatically dismiss them as ignoramus crack pots. Science doesn't get settled science leads to knowledge that's it.

 

The thing is he disagrees with them as well. That’s what’s so amusing. He and Bowerbird disagree with scientists on basic things like properties of gasses and differences between energy and matter.

 

It dates back over 40 years. It was founded by a colorful character that actually has a PhD in biochemistry, was a professor at UCSD, and was once President of the Linus Pauling Institute, a respected research organization. But after getting into a tiff with the founder he was canned, and went on to form his own organization a couple of years later. Where one of their largest "research programs" was collecting over 41,000 vials of human urine as Robinson believes that is the secret to extending human lifespans. Oh, he also hates public education, the Federal Reserve, and believes in Intelligent Design.

Out here we largely consider him to be a joke. And yes, he is actually my State Senator. Where thankfully he is allowed to do as little as possible.

 

I make a living by understanding and using biological sciences to produce food and consumer items for you.

The difference between reflection and absorption are massive, not minuscule. The two are polar opposites.

Your opinion is analogous to me as a biologist claiming plants are net producers of CO2 and animals are net producers of oxygen. We can’t just make stuff up we think sounds good and base out beliefs on that. Facts matter.

I don’t pick and choose studies. We’ve been through this. The last time you questioned my posts I quoted the IPCC to you and they conflicted with your unsubstantiated opinions. You just don’t like science and prefer your unsubstantiated opinions.

The studies I cite are representative of the consensus of climate scientists. They are produced by climate scientists. They include citations of other studies in their introduction and conclusions and discussion sections showing how the work fits with previous work. That’s why YOU can’t EVER post any evidence conflicting with them.

If you won’t believe climate scientists then you need to stop referring to the IPCC etc. Their job is to to exactly what I do. Present studies to the public that educate on climate science. They pick individual studies. Sometimes they use multiple cites. Just as I do. You will notice if you pay attention I often cite 2-3 sources instead of just one. There is a reason.

You are a straight up science denier. It doesn’t matter if I post it on PF or physicists publish works on properties of gasses, or the IPCC comments on a subject using references to one or more studies, if it conflicts with your unsubstantiated opinions you reject it.

 

It's diverse in that there are numerous disciplines of science involved.

A conspiracy would have to organize all those disciplines to generate false results that matched the false results of all the other disciplines.

Plus, this would require a world wide effort.

If you want to propose how such an effort is being organized and enforced, feel free. But, stop with the handwaving excuse that it's a conspiracy until then.

Yes, politicians are ALWAYS treating science as just one source of information - that is their JOB. There are other factors politicians must attend to, such as popularity, funding, costs of policy options, etc.

Yes, the IPCC has sections that study impacts and mediation options.

 

What's your top policy change for reducing the warming that is happening?

 

all united under the same ideology.

Or block the release of results which cast shade on the accepted ideology.

The UN IS world wide, as is the World Economic Forum.

Already have proposed it. Maybe it's time for you to question your blind loyalty.

That's exactly the point.

Not what I said. They don't just follow science, the base there output on wokism mantras as well; with wokism maintaining the upper hand.

 

Policy for where? What warming specifically?

 

More conspiracy theory.