most of the models are built with positive feedbacks but I don't think the evidence supports that
It does.
Especially since emissions have gone nowhere but up, and temperatures have been mostly flat for the last 10 years.
This is a lie. The past decade was the warmest on record.
The greenhouse effect is pretty clear, but I don't think we understand enough about the feedbacks to make the kind of catastrophic predictions that are going out.
The evidence is all there. All you need to do is look it up. If you don't know about the evidence that exists, you are obviously lying about following climate science.
What I am pointing out is that when the government starts regulating the gas you breath out it is very fucking bad.
Who wants the government to regulate that? They may want to regulate CO2 emission from vehicles, factories, etc. But there are no plans whatsoever to add a breathing tax.
This is a list of 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
Except it isn't. The list is basically a bunch of papers the author of the list thinks supports his position, or he picked some denialist "research" that wasn't even published in a proper scientific journal.
Also, the author himself admits: "Various papers are mutually exclusive"
You failed miserably. Sorry, but it's true. You need to be more skeptical of claims, and not just blindly accept anything that seems to match your superstitious beliefs.
Indeed, increased CO2 will not necessarily increase plant growth. Studies have shown that too much CO2 can actually be detrimental to plant growth. In addition to that, when it gets warmer, various plant-killing creatures and other nasties will spread to new areas and wreak havoc on new areas of plants.
More heat will decrease human deaths due to exposure? Huh?
Is your mind open, though? You can't possibly be very open-minded if you blindly accepted that list of former engineers, managers and astronauts at NASA as a list of people relevant to the actual climate science.
Why do you care what former NASA employees are saying about this? Did these former employees do actual climate research? As far as I can tell, the list is almost exclusively made up of engineers, managers and former astronauts!
That's like creating a list of engineers opposing the theory of evolution. Would you find that to be a reliable list of experts?
If your score has been going backwards it's because you are blinded by ideology to the point where you ignore actual scientists, and refer to random people without any relevant background as experts on the matter.
However, as I grow older and look at scientific consensus change over my lifetime, I find that science is very politically biased.
If you actually paid, attention, you would find that science does not, in fact, change over time. That is, a huge amount of new knowledge is added, but established theories are rarely overturned all of a sudden. So it seems that as you grow older, you mind weakens, because someone who was rational about this would not make a comment like yours.
However, there's nowhere near enough evidence that this is all man made to satisfy many people, and the numbers who are skeptical about that aspect are growing every day.
There's a huge body of evidence showing that man is causing the current warming. It's more than enough to show that this is the case. That some people (deniers) aren't satisfied doesn't really matter. These people don't care about scientific facts anyway.
That regular people are being fooled by the denialist industry, and that more and more of them are rejecting scientific facts doesn't mean that the denialists are right. It just means that their well-funded propaganda campaigns are successful.
It's silly of you to refer to someone else as "hysterical" because they accept the scientific consensus. The hysterical person here must be the one who violently rejects scientific facts because he doesn't like them.
Science is indeed decided by facts. The consensus reflects the collective scientific conclusions at that point.
suggests to me that they're nowhere near as sure of themselves as they want us to think that they are
This suggests to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Scientists who have ignored the facts and continued to argue against them deserve to have their character called into question. A scientist who consistently denies what the actual research says has no business having a career in science. When there's a position available, you hire someone who is competent. If someone turns out to be incompetent, he should be fired.
So having people fired for not doing their jobs ("scientists" rejecting scientific facts and only playing the politics game) is a good thing.
That was the mistake. When you launched it, you made it political.
No, what's political is what you are supposed to do based on the science. Rational people point to the scientific facts that show that AGW is happening, and call for solutions to that.
Deniers like you simply deny that the science is correct instead of addressing the facts.
As to using the science not politicizing it. That depends on whether the scientists personally involve themselves in the politics. Hanson and most of the other big names have done so fairly shamelessly. And that has a price.
But you don't have a problem with all the denialist leaders politicizing the issue? You blindly spew lies made up by the denialist leaders? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
As to the scientists involved in the IPCC, you mean the ones that used a misquote from a climbing magazine to claim the Himalayas will be gone in 20 years?
What? Source, please. Sounds like you are just parroting denialist claims.
The IPCC is horribly tainted at this point again because of politics.
It is not. Denialists would like to lie to people to make them think so, though.
And so we return to your hypocrisy again. You are basically spewing a bunch of denialist lies made up by denialist leaders who are all about the politics, and denying facts because they want to protect their ideology. And yet that is fine, while actual scientists doing actual science also getting involved in politics that affects their area of expertise is a bad thing?
Typical denier.
This is what happens when you politicize it.
Sorry, bit it was your side that politicized it. The scientists wouldn't have to be out there spending time promoting the science if your allies didn't spew lies about the science.
AGW is a scientific theory (like evolution and gravity), not just a hypothesis. It is obvious that you are "questioning" (denying) a scientific theory because you don't like it.
You are also deeply ignorant. You think predicting the weather is like predicting climate trends. Wow.
The Global Warming crowd HATES engineering solutions
Who gave you permission to speak on behalf of the "global warming crowd"? Your conspiracy theories and blatant lies and dishonesty just means that you are another demagogue who rejects the science because it conflicts with your ideology.
The majority of the people who do not agree with the conclusions of AWG are not a part of a conspiracy, nor have most even been influenced by a conspiracy to believe such.
They may not be part of a conspiracy, but they most certainly are victims of a conspiracy to lie to people so that they distrust scientific facts.
It's like Gaddafi or Assad calling their opponents terrorists to garner support, while the rebels are being bombarded by an armament hundreds of times greater.
Nonsense. The comparison is useless. The fact is that the pro-science side fights with science on its side, while your side (the science deniers) fight dirty. So a better comparison would be a war where one side would only use legal weapons and methods, while the other would violate all rules to win.
We just do not have enough information to conclude, to a good enough degree, that what the scientists say is going to happen.
Oh, but we do. The science clearly shows what's going on, and what's going to happen.
Just because our weathermen can predict to a certain degree the weather for the next week doesn't mean we're ready to decide what's going to happen to Earth in the next century.
You do realize that it's easier to predict longer term trends than it is to predict variations for shorter periods of time, right? Or are you that lacking in knowledge?
Trends in temperature rise have happened before, and even though some of it may be due to human activities in the past couple of centuries, we really do not have any idea how things will pan out in the future.
Oh, but we do. And scientists even understand past climate chamge.
Slashdot Mirror
It does.
This is a lie. The past decade was the warmest on record.
What are these "catastrophic predictions" then?
The evidence is all there. All you need to do is look it up. If you don't know about the evidence that exists, you are obviously lying about following climate science.
No, it is based on actual empirical evidence. And the temperature has indeed risen. 1998 is not the hottest year on record.
Who wants the government to regulate that? They may want to regulate CO2 emission from vehicles, factories, etc. But there are no plans whatsoever to add a breathing tax.
Calm down man, you are getting hysterical!
Except it isn't. The list is basically a bunch of papers the author of the list thinks supports his position, or he picked some denialist "research" that wasn't even published in a proper scientific journal.
Also, the author himself admits: "Various papers are mutually exclusive"
You failed miserably. Sorry, but it's true. You need to be more skeptical of claims, and not just blindly accept anything that seems to match your superstitious beliefs.
Do they know anything relevant about the atmosphere? Something that actually gives them insight into climate research?
Who mentioned degrees in those? The guy you are replying to specifically mentioned doing actual research.
Indeed, increased CO2 will not necessarily increase plant growth. Studies have shown that too much CO2 can actually be detrimental to plant growth. In addition to that, when it gets warmer, various plant-killing creatures and other nasties will spread to new areas and wreak havoc on new areas of plants.
More heat will decrease human deaths due to exposure? Huh?
Facts never stopped the astroturfers...
Is your mind open, though? You can't possibly be very open-minded if you blindly accepted that list of former engineers, managers and astronauts at NASA as a list of people relevant to the actual climate science.
Why do you care what former NASA employees are saying about this? Did these former employees do actual climate research? As far as I can tell, the list is almost exclusively made up of engineers, managers and former astronauts!
That's like creating a list of engineers opposing the theory of evolution. Would you find that to be a reliable list of experts?
If your score has been going backwards it's because you are blinded by ideology to the point where you ignore actual scientists, and refer to random people without any relevant background as experts on the matter.
If you actually paid, attention, you would find that science does not, in fact, change over time. That is, a huge amount of new knowledge is added, but established theories are rarely overturned all of a sudden. So it seems that as you grow older, you mind weakens, because someone who was rational about this would not make a comment like yours.
There's a huge body of evidence showing that man is causing the current warming. It's more than enough to show that this is the case. That some people (deniers) aren't satisfied doesn't really matter. These people don't care about scientific facts anyway.
That regular people are being fooled by the denialist industry, and that more and more of them are rejecting scientific facts doesn't mean that the denialists are right. It just means that their well-funded propaganda campaigns are successful.
It's silly of you to refer to someone else as "hysterical" because they accept the scientific consensus. The hysterical person here must be the one who violently rejects scientific facts because he doesn't like them.
Science is indeed decided by facts. The consensus reflects the collective scientific conclusions at that point.
This suggests to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Scientists who have ignored the facts and continued to argue against them deserve to have their character called into question. A scientist who consistently denies what the actual research says has no business having a career in science. When there's a position available, you hire someone who is competent. If someone turns out to be incompetent, he should be fired.
So having people fired for not doing their jobs ("scientists" rejecting scientific facts and only playing the politics game) is a good thing.
Yes, exactly. You are admitting that you are proud about successfully making people deny basic scientific facts. It's quite pathetic.
You don't like the facts, so you deny them. Ouch.
No, the earth being flat was not a scientific claim. Furthermore, comparing the claims of that time to the science of today is completely insane.
Really? What leaks and public income data might that be? Specifics, please!
What "movement" did Al Gore launch, exactly?
No, what's political is what you are supposed to do based on the science. Rational people point to the scientific facts that show that AGW is happening, and call for solutions to that.
Deniers like you simply deny that the science is correct instead of addressing the facts.
But you don't have a problem with all the denialist leaders politicizing the issue? You blindly spew lies made up by the denialist leaders? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
What? Source, please. Sounds like you are just parroting denialist claims.
It is not. Denialists would like to lie to people to make them think so, though.
And so we return to your hypocrisy again. You are basically spewing a bunch of denialist lies made up by denialist leaders who are all about the politics, and denying facts because they want to protect their ideology. And yet that is fine, while actual scientists doing actual science also getting involved in politics that affects their area of expertise is a bad thing?
Typical denier.
Sorry, bit it was your side that politicized it. The scientists wouldn't have to be out there spending time promoting the science if your allies didn't spew lies about the science.
AGW is a scientific theory (like evolution and gravity), not just a hypothesis. It is obvious that you are "questioning" (denying) a scientific theory because you don't like it.
You are also deeply ignorant. You think predicting the weather is like predicting climate trends. Wow.
Who gave you permission to speak on behalf of the "global warming crowd"? Your conspiracy theories and blatant lies and dishonesty just means that you are another demagogue who rejects the science because it conflicts with your ideology.
They may not be part of a conspiracy, but they most certainly are victims of a conspiracy to lie to people so that they distrust scientific facts.
Nonsense. The comparison is useless. The fact is that the pro-science side fights with science on its side, while your side (the science deniers) fight dirty. So a better comparison would be a war where one side would only use legal weapons and methods, while the other would violate all rules to win.
Yes, the earth has warmed and cooled in the past. And what happened? Yes, mass-extinction. Do we really want that to happen again?
Oh, but we do. The science clearly shows what's going on, and what's going to happen.
You do realize that it's easier to predict longer term trends than it is to predict variations for shorter periods of time, right? Or are you that lacking in knowledge?
Oh, but we do. And scientists even understand past climate chamge.
Please stop denying the facts.