You obviously know very little about science.
When you come back please do so with actual proof of anything.
consensus science is when you take the opposing view and you are sacked, grants stopped, run out of town etc.
that creates a consensus
Is this the first time gov were able to tax you after they got the scientific consensus they wanted?
Cant tax the Sun or the weather, so its us breathing out Co2
How unscientific of you.
The facts are the facts and the facts are that humans are causing climate change. If you want to argue policy, that’s a completely different topic.
Scientists aren’t telling you how to live.
Except you are unqualified.
- I’m not sure what government taxes you’re talking about.
- if there were carbon taxes I don’t think I’d be in favor of them because there is nothing the government can do with the money to solve the problem.
- your previous example of CFCs and the ozone, they banned CFCs. Should they ban burning fossil fuels then instead of taxing?
Roughly 33% of atmospheric CO2 is man made, largely from burning fossil fuels. That doesn’t sound insignificant to me.
- I agree they were more interested in the money than fixing the problem, hence why proving the man made part via fossil fuels was a major milestone for them.
- CFC’s actually were modified, to make them better, they still exist.
3.5 Co2 levels on the planet were higher in the past when no humans were here.
4.Cleaning emissions is whats needed, If the USA did nothing but convert all the current coal burners to new style ‘clean coal’ they would meet the kyoto protocol.
- The Paris accord left out Methane 25 times worse so chasing Co2 might be a false flag.
- Look at the mess in shipping emissions, DOH going nowhere.
The study of climatology took off around 1860, and the word existed before 1800. Is that long enough ago for you?
To you (and some others not to be named here) it appears that playing Russian Roulette with the future of our one and only planet and the livelihood of other people is a game that you can win or loose with no consequences either way. (Just press Reset)
Even if you and your unnamed “friend” should be right there is no harm in having done something and “loosing”, but if you are wrong, yet manage to block more sensible people from doing anything, it could be a catastrophe for many soon and for future generations everywhere.
But who care about anybody else, or future generations, as long as I win a debate on an internet forum??
So you ignored my plea above for the plight of African and Indian peasants seeking electric lights? Typical!
I’m not the one playing Russian roulette with their lives or the planet. It’s amoral do-gooders who think they’ll save the world by dropping the temperature by a poofteenth at huge, unbearable cost and screw the poor and helpless who’d much rather have access to cheap electricity and a taste of civilisation than being condemned to live short painful lives in their shitholes be cause you deny them what you have.
Wow, you totally derailed this forum. Perhaps you should take the conversation over to here:
Then you can continue fighting forever.
Says you of what qualification?
A simple denial would have been easier. I’ll take it as point proven.
I’m the one saying it’s natural and normal. You are the one needing proof. And I cited one above which your seaman’s eye still can’t find.
Yes. Observations being the very essence of science you wear an eye patch … on both eyes.
I started this whole post arguing policy in a maritime setting ie don’t bother trying to change the world’s temperature and especially with essential shipping. I don’t care if humans are causing climate change because all the evidence says we don’t have any more than an insignificant effect overall. Yes, we have an effect but it’s not worth the penalty of removing the effect and warming is good anyway. But feel-good, sanctimonious warmists like you couldn’t care less about the poor and starving billions. They are just climate cannon fodder sacrificed for the noble good of so-called environmentalists who’ve forgotten humans are part of nature.
Perhaps just one example for you. “Scientists” in the USA have declared greenhouse gasses a danger to the environment (without published scientific justification) thereby allowing them to regulate all sorts of things from vehicle exhausts to power stations to cattle farts. Tell me that doesn’t affect your life. Another. I’m not a smoker but my wife is but scientists have succeeded in regulating where and when she can smoke, advocated and won extortionate rates of excise, prevented use of her vaping device and ostracised all smokers as outcasts and evil.
There are many examples.
Unqualified to what? Remove the eye patch(es)? See? Hear? Feel? Smell? Touch? Speak? Vote? Give an opinion? What exactly? Please provide a list of names of people qualified to give an opinion and state their qualifications to do so. Don’t bother including yourself.
I call bullshit. Citation? And please not your SS favourite website. I’d reckon about 4%.
When was the first degree specifically in “climate science” awarded by any university? What exactly is “climate science”? People studied geology from ancient times and could determine previous climate from their observations. I would be quite happy to include geologists among the many professions qualified to be included as “climate scientists” but others here seem to think such people aren’t. People studied the sun likewise, so we should include solar physicists. Plenty more, but not so many degrees in “climate science” which it would seem is the one and only qualification to talk and opine on “climate science” and to be, the ultimate, a climate scientist.
There are no carbon taxes in the US that I’m aware of though.
It’s already been proven by thousands of published papers, the burden of proof is in you to disprove it now.
If you actually cited anything why are you afraid to do so again?
“Your own eyes” are unreliable and the reason the scientific method exists. If you knew about about science you’d know that.
No, you started it denying the science. If you had accepted the science and still criticized the policy we be having a very different conversation.
Wrong. The evidence shows otherwise but some people with an agenda cherry pick data (leave stuff out) to convince people like you that it doesn’t.
Basically all the published papers disagree with you.
Scientists don’t regulate anything dumbass.
To talk about the science and what it says when you clearly don’t understand science in general, let alone climate science specifically.
I haven’t the slightest idea, nor do I know if there is such a degree. I don’t see it as relevant. Climatologists are people who devote their careers to the study of climate. By the time they have ten thousand hours devoted to it I suspect they have a pretty good handle on whatever portion of the field is their main interest.
To my uninformed view it seems that meteorologist are collecting data to input and then using the results of various weather forecast models, I’d think that that task of building the models is mostly related to physics. I’d assume the work of building a climate model would be more physics then meteorology.
Perhaps a climatologist is analogous to the meteorologist in that they use related models (climate and weather) in similar ways.
I think the biggest difference is the meteorologist cares about what’s happening this hour and this week; while the climatologist thinks a year is hardly worth bothering with, so to say.
As to models, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t some degree of empiricism involved – though I remember when nobody would dream of forecasting a week ahead in New England, and now they often get it pretty close.