Don’t you know that ‘scientists’ have an elite group whose opinions count thousand times more than other ‘scientists’? (Fake) Science Guy Bill ‘the end time is nigh’ Nye is one such ‘scientist’.
Here is what 97% of Climate Scientists agree on, according to your link: “Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”
Here is what they do NOT agree on:
1. That it is a certainty that human activities are causing the warming (“extremely likely” is a hedge, and NOT “settled science”).
2. 97% do NOT agree on how much warming will result.
3. 97% do NOT agree on the exact correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures.
4. 97% do NOT agree on how warm the planet will get if we do nothing. Or if we do a lot. Or somewhere in between.
5. 97% do NOT agree that the warming will be catastrophic. Or bad. Or anything at all.
6. 97% do NOT agree on what to do about it. Some believe nuclear energy is the only viable option. Others think the waste problem is too risky.
7. 97% do NOT agree on whether CO2 reduction will actually cause a reduction in warming or whether other factors (methane) will offset any efforts made to reduce C02.
8. 97% can’t agree on whether the lack of warming of the last 20 years was due to oceans absorbing the warming or some other causes.
I could go on and on and on. Honest climate scientists agree with all 8 of my statements above – 100% of them.
June 20, 2019 at 12:13 pm
News to Me says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So in other words, my source backed up the claim I never made, but you insisted I support.
So now, your turn. Back up your claims.
I won’t hold my breath.
June 19, 2019 at 8:29 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Cook et al, 2013, as well as their follow up study, as well as their follow up survey of climate scientists in their original study, Benestad et al studied the 3% of climate papers not confirming climate change in the Cook study and found every single one of them had mathematical errors or actually confirmed climate change was happening and man-made.
On the other hand you have propaganda “studies” by psychologists and chemists.
I imagine if you take all the fossil fuels out of the earth, all at once, and light them on fire, that would have an impact on the climate and carbon dioxide levels, (not to mention the temperature, lol)
As a livestock farmer I know I leave a significant imprint but am not afraid to talk about it. There are billions? of tons of methane locked under the oceans, that had nothing to do with homo sapiens or ruminants. I’m hoping crops can be used to capture some of this carbon and maybe there will be some economic benefits.
What really galls me is when the ‘accords’ want the USA to pay for everything so related and Al Gore and similar fly around the world burning fossil fuels to tell everyone the sky is falling because of humans.
My faith is restored! Just when I thought Insurance Journal might be trying to play the Climate Change game without the fear-mongering and demonization of thinking people who recognize the predictions so far have all been WRONG, they drop this line in the article:
“Republicans took aim at the still-vague Green New Deal and promoted nuclear power, a carbon-free—if expensive and logistically complicated—power source.”
Hilarious. Nuclear energy is “expensive”. Newsflash to liberals: it is far less expensive over time than day dream fantasies about wind and solar, which are far more expensive without government subsidies than is nuclear, and which can’t scale to solve the problem like nuclear power can.
Which is why 75% of power in France and Sweden comes from nuclear power. Because it is so “expensive”.
(I do love the fact the climate scientist in the article tacitly acknowledges the failure of climate science predictions so far when he talks about how accurate forecasting has become IN THE PAST 10 YEARS – heh, heh. But I guess we have to wait another 30 years to see if he is correct.)
What would the climate change dupes [read Democrats] know about assets? Aren’t they so far left that assets no longer exist? Just another propaganda move which is dressed up in sheep’s clothing.
knowall, you make an excellent point. If methane were so damaging then the climate nuts should find a way to keep sheep and cows from farting.
did you know that statistically, cows are responsible for more human deaths every year than sharks??? However as of this writing, we STILL don’t have a “Cow Week” on The Discovery Channel.
Wow, there is some actual agreement now on being good stewards of our planet? All someone had to do was put dollar signs to it? I guess I don’t care the reasoning, as long as we are taking care of this living organism which will sustain life long after the existence of humans. I’m happy to hear there are some on both sides of the aisle that can see eye-to-eye and come to some sort of an agreement. This is progress.
Progress, Captain Kangaroo, is when liberals admit that everything has a cost, including Planet Saving.
Instead of fantasies about Green New Deals that would bankrupt the country, how about realistic and honest (new concept) admissions that all the past predictions by Climate Scientists have been wrong?
That would be progress, sticking to the truth for a change, admitting that nothing is “settled” on Climate Change, no matter what your Climate Priests say.
The earth is an asset. So next it will become a resource. But hey what else can you expect from UCal? So now this globalist republican will support taxing the asset. Perfect.
I am always amazed at the hubris of these goofs that think that humans can cause climate change, much less “manage” it. What fools. I’ve got a bit of news for them – yes, the climate is changing, the climate is ALWAYS changing. And comparing anything to the past 100 or so years is meaningless, that is a splinter of an instant in the history of the earth.
Shaking my head that any resources are expended on this ridiculousness.
The weather/climate has changed here in Michigan; whether it is due to carbon dioxide or natural we don’t really know for sure.
If I remember correctly a volcano spews tons of methane that are trapped in the earth. An asteroid or similar hitting the earth could release billions of tons of m?
The Earth is warming, however, so are the other planets. https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html This is the part that gets left out of every single “climate” discussion I’ve heard over the years. NASA had great information on their site as well stating every planet they have been able to measure has increased in temperature the last few decades. I don’t think man can be blamed for rising temperatures on Mars.
Some people believe this is just a cycle the solar system goes through. Rapid rising temperatures followed by a rapid cooling period. Man has not been around long enough to witness these things and many of them simply are not measurable. The issue we have is this; Is there anything we can do about it? Maybe. Maybe not. With other planets warming as well, it isn’t a reach to say climate change isn’t man made, especially with the other planets warming at the same pace as ours. That being said, it is still an issue. If this is some sort of solar cycle, can we do anything at all about it? There are no cows on Mars. No cars on Jupiter. I simply do not believe “man” can do anything about this, regardless of what measures are taken. That does NOT mean I’m stating climate change isn’t real. It absolutely is. Will cutting down on carbons do anything? The other planets have zero emissions and are warming….. We cannot cut ours to zero, so is anything at all going to really make a difference in terms of the temperatures? I’m not a scientist, so it’s beyond my comprehension. I am able to read the news and see scientists state the entire universe is warming though. Ok. Why and can anything at all be done is the next question. We don’t need to agree on what is causing the climate change, but we do need to find out if anything can realistically be done. Both sides of the coin (Democrats and Republicans) have done nothing but point fingers for the last twenty years. This arguing amongst ourselves isn’t going to keep us alive. How about we spend that time looking into whether or not this is even something that CAN be changed. I suspect it isn’t and this is just the next cycle, but what do I know.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Don’t you know that ‘scientists’ have an elite group whose opinions count thousand times more than other ‘scientists’? (Fake) Science Guy Bill ‘the end time is nigh’ Nye is one such ‘scientist’.
I had no idea that the scientific community overwhelmingly did not believe in human assisted climate change.
Can you cite your source? I would like to learn more about them and what research they’ve done on the topic.
Why don’t you cite a source to back up the hysterical assertion about “97% of climate scientists” blah blah blah.
Go ahead. That claim has been discredited multiple times, but what have you got?
That’s not how debate works Craig. I didn’t claim anything. I merely asked for a source on a claim made.
Oh, sorry, didn’t realize you were in charge of formal Debate Rules.
Why don’t you answer my very legitimate question or admit the “97% claim” is a fraud. Or admit you have no idea. Which would be fine too.
I asked for a source on a stated claim. You are asking me to provide a source on a claim I didn’t state.
This is in no way the same.
I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Also, this is straight from the hysterical government agency NASA…
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Here is what 97% of Climate Scientists agree on, according to your link: “Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”
Here is what they do NOT agree on:
1. That it is a certainty that human activities are causing the warming (“extremely likely” is a hedge, and NOT “settled science”).
2. 97% do NOT agree on how much warming will result.
3. 97% do NOT agree on the exact correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures.
4. 97% do NOT agree on how warm the planet will get if we do nothing. Or if we do a lot. Or somewhere in between.
5. 97% do NOT agree that the warming will be catastrophic. Or bad. Or anything at all.
6. 97% do NOT agree on what to do about it. Some believe nuclear energy is the only viable option. Others think the waste problem is too risky.
7. 97% do NOT agree on whether CO2 reduction will actually cause a reduction in warming or whether other factors (methane) will offset any efforts made to reduce C02.
8. 97% can’t agree on whether the lack of warming of the last 20 years was due to oceans absorbing the warming or some other causes.
I could go on and on and on. Honest climate scientists agree with all 8 of my statements above – 100% of them.
So in other words, my source backed up the claim I never made, but you insisted I support.
So now, your turn. Back up your claims.
I won’t hold my breath.
Cook et al, 2013, as well as their follow up study, as well as their follow up survey of climate scientists in their original study, Benestad et al studied the 3% of climate papers not confirming climate change in the Cook study and found every single one of them had mathematical errors or actually confirmed climate change was happening and man-made.
On the other hand you have propaganda “studies” by psychologists and chemists.
I imagine if you take all the fossil fuels out of the earth, all at once, and light them on fire, that would have an impact on the climate and carbon dioxide levels, (not to mention the temperature, lol)
As a livestock farmer I know I leave a significant imprint but am not afraid to talk about it. There are billions? of tons of methane locked under the oceans, that had nothing to do with homo sapiens or ruminants. I’m hoping crops can be used to capture some of this carbon and maybe there will be some economic benefits.
What really galls me is when the ‘accords’ want the USA to pay for everything so related and Al Gore and similar fly around the world burning fossil fuels to tell everyone the sky is falling because of humans.
My faith is restored! Just when I thought Insurance Journal might be trying to play the Climate Change game without the fear-mongering and demonization of thinking people who recognize the predictions so far have all been WRONG, they drop this line in the article:
“Republicans took aim at the still-vague Green New Deal and promoted nuclear power, a carbon-free—if expensive and logistically complicated—power source.”
Hilarious. Nuclear energy is “expensive”. Newsflash to liberals: it is far less expensive over time than day dream fantasies about wind and solar, which are far more expensive without government subsidies than is nuclear, and which can’t scale to solve the problem like nuclear power can.
Which is why 75% of power in France and Sweden comes from nuclear power. Because it is so “expensive”.
(I do love the fact the climate scientist in the article tacitly acknowledges the failure of climate science predictions so far when he talks about how accurate forecasting has become IN THE PAST 10 YEARS – heh, heh. But I guess we have to wait another 30 years to see if he is correct.)
What would the climate change dupes [read Democrats] know about assets? Aren’t they so far left that assets no longer exist? Just another propaganda move which is dressed up in sheep’s clothing.
knowall, you make an excellent point. If methane were so damaging then the climate nuts should find a way to keep sheep and cows from farting.
:-)
wait, cows don’t fart? Is that true?
did you know that statistically, cows are responsible for more human deaths every year than sharks??? However as of this writing, we STILL don’t have a “Cow Week” on The Discovery Channel.
Wow, there is some actual agreement now on being good stewards of our planet? All someone had to do was put dollar signs to it? I guess I don’t care the reasoning, as long as we are taking care of this living organism which will sustain life long after the existence of humans. I’m happy to hear there are some on both sides of the aisle that can see eye-to-eye and come to some sort of an agreement. This is progress.
Progress, Captain Kangaroo, is when liberals admit that everything has a cost, including Planet Saving.
Instead of fantasies about Green New Deals that would bankrupt the country, how about realistic and honest (new concept) admissions that all the past predictions by Climate Scientists have been wrong?
That would be progress, sticking to the truth for a change, admitting that nothing is “settled” on Climate Change, no matter what your Climate Priests say.
How about that progress?
You sure know how to progress yourself out from underneath that bridge. Not biting, dude. Have a good weekend!
I won’t wait for an honest response from you that what I said is truth: nearly every climate change prediction so far has been wrong.
And the Green New Deal is so laughably expensive that rational people laugh.
Proving once again that all you got is nastiness “underneath that bridge”.
The earth is an asset. So next it will become a resource. But hey what else can you expect from UCal? So now this globalist republican will support taxing the asset. Perfect.
What in the heck makes this insurance news?
I am always amazed at the hubris of these goofs that think that humans can cause climate change, much less “manage” it. What fools. I’ve got a bit of news for them – yes, the climate is changing, the climate is ALWAYS changing. And comparing anything to the past 100 or so years is meaningless, that is a splinter of an instant in the history of the earth.
Shaking my head that any resources are expended on this ridiculousness.
It is called weather!!! see climate over the last million years and it becomes clear.
The weather/climate has changed here in Michigan; whether it is due to carbon dioxide or natural we don’t really know for sure.
If I remember correctly a volcano spews tons of methane that are trapped in the earth. An asteroid or similar hitting the earth could release billions of tons of m?
The Earth is warming, however, so are the other planets. https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html This is the part that gets left out of every single “climate” discussion I’ve heard over the years. NASA had great information on their site as well stating every planet they have been able to measure has increased in temperature the last few decades. I don’t think man can be blamed for rising temperatures on Mars.
Some people believe this is just a cycle the solar system goes through. Rapid rising temperatures followed by a rapid cooling period. Man has not been around long enough to witness these things and many of them simply are not measurable. The issue we have is this; Is there anything we can do about it? Maybe. Maybe not. With other planets warming as well, it isn’t a reach to say climate change isn’t man made, especially with the other planets warming at the same pace as ours. That being said, it is still an issue. If this is some sort of solar cycle, can we do anything at all about it? There are no cows on Mars. No cars on Jupiter. I simply do not believe “man” can do anything about this, regardless of what measures are taken. That does NOT mean I’m stating climate change isn’t real. It absolutely is. Will cutting down on carbons do anything? The other planets have zero emissions and are warming….. We cannot cut ours to zero, so is anything at all going to really make a difference in terms of the temperatures? I’m not a scientist, so it’s beyond my comprehension. I am able to read the news and see scientists state the entire universe is warming though. Ok. Why and can anything at all be done is the next question. We don’t need to agree on what is causing the climate change, but we do need to find out if anything can realistically be done. Both sides of the coin (Democrats and Republicans) have done nothing but point fingers for the last twenty years. This arguing amongst ourselves isn’t going to keep us alive. How about we spend that time looking into whether or not this is even something that CAN be changed. I suspect it isn’t and this is just the next cycle, but what do I know.
I guess what you know is probably less than the scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying this issue.