Hundreds of Scientists Say Climate Change Is Not Science, CO2 Is Benign

[DutchJazzer]

Bill Nye The Lying Guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8b0JIPGyOA

bill is not a science guy. any "scientist" who calls skeptics a war criminal is not a scientist but a ignoramus.
because science is based on skepticism and questioning things

once again models and simulations are not SETTLED SCIENCE. they more complex the subject the greater the flaws and mistakes in the models and simulation. anybody who thinks otherwise, has no clue what a simulation or model is. it is not settled science.

he calls people who deny his "evidence" deniers. but he faisl to realizes simulation and models are not EVIDENCE!
i learned that the first year in college

 

[Boris]

because culture has everything to do with it.

for example israel is greening the desert, which gives us more forest to decrease co2. if you think co2 causes catastrophic climate change that's a good thing right.

some cultures just aren't trying to progress, or have different priorities.

saudi arabia likes to spend money on buying Ferrari, Porsche Bugatti as cop cars. Israel just gets regular cop cars.


trust me having lived and worked in Netherlands and various 3rd world countries, you notice this mentality in the production branch.
its like certain cultures have an aversion to production. and without production there is no progresion.
some of the countries i lived in.

there is another aprouch to this problem. they call it the "recourse curse"


netherlands has no real natural recourse, Israel also has no real natural resources.
but for example saudi arabi and Venezuela and other 3rd world countries i have been in do have an abundance of those recourses..
of course the us of a does have some natural resources. but as far as i know not expensive minerals, so usa breaks this trend in a way(i know you got coal and oil).

is this post relevant i dont know. but you compared netherland and saudi arabia, so gave my honest input

The Resource Curse is fake news.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Before we 'lefties' go stick our heads in the sand, perhaps someone, who cares enough to put in the effort, could determine how many of the scientists signing this petition are actual climate scientists published in credible scientific journals?

All scientists are not created equal.

I'm guessing that a good share of 'scientist' signing this petition are one or more of the following:

a. Not actual climate scientists but from 'scientists' in other disciplines unrelated, or tengentially related, to climate science.
b. Have not conducted research on climate science.
c. Have not published articles on climate science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
d. Have not published any articles on natural science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
e. Are not affliated with respectable research universities.
f. Have economic or other ties to resource extraction and usage industries; some may even be lobbiest for such industries.
g. Are affilitated with right-wing think tanks or policy advocacy organizations.
h. Are not really scientists at all in terms of credentials or work experience.

I could be wrong, of course.

One must consider that with little difficulty, one might also find supposedly 'respectable' persons, even some with scientific credentials, advocating for such things as:

a. 911 trutherism
b. Big foot
c. Extra terrestrials
d. Holocaust denial
e. List random crank theory here

 

[babe]

Before we 'lefties' go stick our heads in the sand, perhaps someone, who cares enough to put in the effort, could determine how many of the scientists signing this petition are actual climate scientists published in credible scientific journals?

All scientists are not created equal.

I'm guessing that a good share of 'scientist' signing this petition are one or more of the following:

a. Not actual climate scientists but from 'scientists' in other disciplines unrelated, or tengentially related, to climate science.
b. Have not conducted research on climate science.
c. Have not published articles on climate science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
d. Have not published any articles on natural science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
e. Are not affliated with respectable research universities.
f. Have economic or other ties to resource extraction and usage industries; some may even be lobbiest for such industries.
g. Are affilitated with right-wing think tanks or policy advocacy organizations.
h. Are not really scientists at all in terms of credentials or work experience.

I could be wrong, of course.

One must consider that with little difficulty, one might also find supposedly 'respectable' persons, even some with scientific credentials, advocating for such things as:

a. 911 trutherism
b. Big foot
c. Extra terrestrials
d. Holocaust denial
e. List random crank theory here

really? So do I need a college degree to suspect that you, in saying "I could be wrong", actually self-evaluates that risk at less than 0.0001%? (non-scientific speak meaning less than one in a million?)
common sense can do more for you than sitting in a government-programmed educational conundrum for twenty years, learning to say or find reasons to support the government agenda)


As for "Extra terrestrials", I believe it's mostly liberals who believe that is a problem, and argue therefrom that abortions and childbirth quotas, and euthanasia of "useless eaters" are helpful in solving the problem.

 

[babe]

srs, jej, what do you have against Coast to Coast, the most popular nighttime radio show?

way too serious, bro.

George takes it all on, with credulous courtesy. People talk about greys, abductions into spaceships, hybrid babes.... ghosts, remote viewing, area 51, everything you've ever feared some poor human might believe if not properly subjected to your classroom propaganda, state-approved conditioning of the untrusted human mind.

sure, some folks just like the show for fun. But how dare they have that fun. Fun must be stopped. STOPPED. What would happen to the world if people were just allowed to think for themselves? The Horror!!!! Oh, the Humanity!!!!! or, as I suspect you would term it "Oh, the horrible Humanity!!!!!!"

nah, most people have common sense. Most people have more common sense than any "Established Science".

 

[babe]

Settled Science

This is a little remedial exercise for our school teacher, jej.

OK, so I have some questions, and I actually read stuff, and look at pics.

jej, here is an article from the net, which contains some graphs. Take a few minutes, read it, look at the pics. There will be a quiz.

https://www.atmos.washington.edu/1998Q4/211/project2/moana.htm

please note, this article claims to give us the "settled science" of ice age temps and interglacial temps, representing in the graph, or claiming to represent, published results. OK, so what's wrong with these graphs?

Oh, be sure to read far enough to find the second graph, and compare the scales.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

really? So do I need a college degree to suspect that you, in saying "I could be wrong", actually self-evaluates that risk at less than 0.0001%? (non-scientific speak meaning less than one in a million?)
common sense can do more for you than sitting in a government-programmed educational conundrum for twenty years, learning to say or find reasons to support the government agenda)


As for "Extra terrestrials", I believe it's mostly liberals who believe that is a problem, and argue therefrom that abortions and childbirth quotas, and euthanasia of "useless eaters" are helpful in solving the problem.

Your post makes absolutely no sense and fails to address in a coherent way anything I posed above.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Before we 'lefties' go stick our heads in the sand, perhaps someone, who cares enough to put in the effort, could determine how many of the scientists signing this petition are actual climate scientists published in credible scientific journals?

All scientists are not created equal.

I'm guessing that a good share of 'scientist' signing this petition are one or more of the following:

a. Not actual climate scientists but from 'scientists' in other disciplines unrelated, or tengentially related, to climate science.
b. Have not conducted research on climate science.
c. Have not published articles on climate science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
d. Have not published any articles on natural science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
e. Are not affliated with respectable research universities.
f. Have economic or other ties to resource extraction and usage industries; some may even be lobbiest for such industries.
g. Are affilitated with right-wing think tanks or policy advocacy organizations.
h. Are not really scientists at all in terms of credentials or work experience.

I could be wrong, of course.

where you such a skeptic on the "97% of scientist agree hogwash! i hope you where!

 

[babe]

Your post makes absolutely no sense and fails to address in a coherent way anything I posed above.

oh, should I use some terminology you're familiar with, because you don't have a dictionary?

or, do I need to explain grammar for a complex sentence?

maybe we need to review the decimal idea in mathematics in relation to the meaning of "%".

nah, you're just unwilling to acknowledge simple facts. Hiding in your political rhetoric and quoting your political sources, without understanding them, either, really.

Plain wrong-headed ignorance. 3

Got that?

 

[babe]

Jej, I was looking for a response on the graphs I linked.

I'm old enough to remember when graphs like this were used to prove the coming imminent Ice Age.

I clearly understand the reason why "AGW" "CC" and carbon emissions are being made public issues. Anyone who looks at the climate cycles going back five or six cycles will be concerned about why there are fairly steep "cooling" episodes and why ice ages happen. Nobody knows. This was the first take our global governance leadership tried to make out as the great reason for global crisis management. But hey, the temps just kept warm, too long.

So, hey, why not try global warming to panic the world public into more global governance and mismanagement? Sure, no problem.

It's not science when the objective is political. It's as simple as that.

Sure, I see the data on %CO2 and temps. I question how much is ours, and what may be outgassing from the deep blue seas, which must be a few degrees warmer now than oh say 10K years ago. I suspect that mud catching sunshine in Arctic summers may have a bunch of gases to release. Lots of stuff not really studied very well, yet.

The graphs I tried to show you profess that previous interglacial warms have hit temps even warmer than we have now reached.

I believe the principal causes of ice ages include warmer oceans, warmer at depth and capable of sustaining a change of climate pattern competent to produce the atmospheric moisture needed to build the artic ice mass up again.

cyclical, bro. look up the term. It'll educate you. So far, you're just reacting to politically-charged "thinking". When our oceans cross that threshold, perhaps in sync with a sun cycle or something else of huge long-term relevance clearly out of our reach, we will still get our next Ice Age. Get ready for it. Nobody has any idea of when it's coming, or knows anything about what causes it.... but it's been happening and likely will happen again, even with our AGW spike, or maybe partially because of it.