CO2 levels too low?

[FarmJunkie]

Who pays the scientific organizations? Christ sakes

[chuckChuck]

I've never been able to authenticate that 97% survey.

Can you post that up for us Chuck?

It's referenced in millions of articles but I have never seen a link.

NASA has the sources of the consensus here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

[chuckChuck]

Now you are back to global warming, what happened to climate change? I think you are a few catch phrases behind the cool kids.
Because the definition makes all the difference. There is undeniable evidence of human caused climate change on many scales, and by many measures and definitions, thanks to planting crops, deforestation, urbanization, pollution/particulates in the air, dams, irrigation, desertification, etc etc. Whereas global warming is a very specific and definable metric. Could you please be more consistent and confirm which you want to prove? Because if you are willing to narrow it down to just warming, rather than the meaningless catch-all of climate change then it becomes a much easier job.

Edit, good to see you got the LMAO after a statement that wasn't the slightest bit funny, you had me concerned that you had lost your sense of humor when you forgot it in the last post. Now you just need to discuss you belief system to make it complete.

I corrected my mistake so are you happy now? Lol

Climate change is the correct term because not only is warming happening on a global scale, disruptions to weather patterns and increased numbers of extreme weather events are likely the result of changes to the jet streams and other climate systems.

Not every part of the world is warming at the same rate.

And within climate change some regions can experience average or below average temperatures. Variability of weather still exists on a seasonal and annual basis. But long term trends don't lie.

You really should provide evidence from a recognized scientific organization that global cooling or no change is occurring. Surely if cooling actually exists a large number of scientists would be publishing studies with supporting data. Where are they?

That's why I keep asking for evidence from a recognized and credible scientific organization that human caused climate change is not occurring.

All I get in response is the usual denials, insults, attacks, change the subject, conspiracy theories, political theories, allegations of fraud, scams and run arounds.

Show us the evidence by providing a credible scientific organization that says human caused climate change is not occurring.

The obvious reason you don't is you cant find one! You have had many months running into years to provide an organization. Give up!

[chuckChuck]

Who pays the scientific organizations? Christ sakes

Trump and the US Federal Government fund NASA and NOAA. So they must be biased! LOL

[rumrocks]

Chuck, any suggestions on how we fix the global climate change.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I corrected my mistake so are you happy now? Lol

Just glad I could help. Making a not so minor transgression as that could easily have cost you your job, And then who would we have to make fun of.

Just think, if you hadn't have caught that mistake, You would have been left with a falsifiable hypothesis, Well-defined, quantifiable and measurable on a reasonable timeframe, Then even a dumb farmer could easily have discredited wiith data. Now you are back in your safe zone with a meaningless all encompassing term that includes everything formerly known as weather , Therefore can never be falsified, Like any real scientific theory could be.

This mistake is even more serious than that time I cornered you into conceding that sea level rise Show no acceleration, That you have no clue what percentage of sea level rise could be human caused. Fortunately DML came just in time to save you that time, He appears to have abandoned you to your own incompetent devices now.

And don't forget that you have forfeited the right to use The jet stream is changing weather patterns argument, When you declined my offer of help to prove your theory last winter under the pretext that us dumb farmers just aren't smart enough to read weather records.

[rumrocks]

Just glad I could help. Making a not so minor transgression as that could easily have cost you your job, And then who would we have to make fun of.

Just think, if you hadn't have caught that mistake, You would have been left with a falsifiable hypothesis, Well-defined, quantifiable and measurable on a reasonable timeframe, Then even a dumb farmer could easily have discredited wiith data. Now you are back in your safe zone with a meaningless all encompassing term that includes everything formerly known as weather , Therefore can never be falsified, Like any real scientific theory could be.

This mistake is even more serious than that time I cornered you into conceding that sea level rise Show no acceleration, That you have no clue what percentage of sea level rise could be human caused. Fortunately DML came just in time to save you that time, He appears to have abandoned you to your own incompetent devices now.

And don't forget that you have forfeited the right to use The jet stream is changing weather patterns argument, When you declined my offer of help to prove your theory last winter under the pretext that us dumb farmers just aren't smart enough to read weather records.

Good point, when you bet on weather changing/no change, that's money in the bank every time.

[Misterjade9]

I am so sorry I made the crack about crayons up the Liberal noses, look at where it has got this thread.

[LEP]

Tried the heavy breathing thing last night. Didn’t seem to budge it. But what can you expect after only 3 minutes I guess.

If don't first succeed , try try again.

[farmaholic]

Tried the heavy breathing thing last night. Didn’t seem to budge it. But what can you expect after only 3 minutes I guess.

You might have to get more people involved and make it a group effort.

[Austrian Economics]

There's a couple of logical fallacies in some of the arguments being stated here: the appeal to authority, as in the notion that many scientific organizations support the anthropogenic climate change thesis, so who should question their judgement.

Similar to argumentum ad majorum, or the notion that a thesis must be right if a lot of people believe it.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You might have to get more people involved and make it a group effort.

Look at that. Consider the selfless lengths some people will go to in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Farma, volunteering himself and his harem so we can all learn and advance science. Yet Chuck isn't even willing to read the climate records provided free of charge on a government website to help his anti science crusade.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

We have centuries of historical precedent where the absolute authority of the consensus of the church was not to be questioned, at risk of death. Retarded human progress by unthinkable time. Now in 2020, we find ourselves back in the same dark ages.

There's a couple of logical fallacies in some of the arguments being stated here: the appeal to authority, as in the notion that many scientific organizations support the anthropogenic climate change thesis, so who should question their judgement.

Similar to argumentum ad majorum, or the notion that a thesis must be right if a lot of people believe it.

[Hamloc]

Here is what amazes me Chuck, during the pandemic we have reduced our consumption of fossil fuels by 30%, shut down 90% of our air travel, drastically reduced passenger vehicle usage, electricity usage has went down roughly 10% but environmentalists say it is just a drop in the bucket and not sustainable. So in your world Chuck, you call us flat earth earthers instead of telling how we realistically can reach net zero. For every megawatt of renewable electricity generation you need a megawatt of either hydro, nuclear or fossil fuel generation to create electricity when it is dark and calm. If shutting down half of our society is just a drop in the bucket what is your solution? In my opinion renewables are certainly not the answer and that is what environmentalists are fixated on, when they come out with a realistic and doable plan I will support it, until then my opinions won’t change!!

One other question Chuck, is there any place in the world where windmills and solar panels are manufactured where the sole source of energy used in their manufacture is wind and solar?!?!

Hmmm, Chuck you have almost a whole day to respond, nothing. Personally I think he hasn’t responded because one thing the pandemic has shown us is how valuable plastics are as an example for the necessary PPE, a necessary product of fossil fuels. Environmentalists keep preaching that the fossil fuel era is over but I don’t agree. And when it comes to so called renewable energy the majority of the world’s solar panels are manufactured in China, anyone with a brain would see that we are already to reliant on manufactured goods from China, do we want our energy production dependant on this country? Realistically I didn’t expect a response because he is more interesting on convincing us that we are the problem than in any practical solution!

[chuckChuck]

That's a lame stale argument that somehow climate science is like a religion. LMAO.

When you make statements like that you have obviously run out of facts and evidence to dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus. Is the science that the earth round also a religious view? There are a few who still believe it is flat and it's a scientific conspiracy.

Science that supports medicine, technology and innovation is what has powered the modern world. Do you believe all the science that has delivered us to this point is like a religion?

It is science that proved evolution instead of creation. Although I am sure there are many right wing christian fundamentalists that still don't believe in evolution. Probably still some right here on sillyville.

Equating the scientific consensus on human caused climate change to a religion is absolute malarkey. Climate scientists build upon previous science and use peer review to challenge each other all the time. If your science is flawed then it will be challenged. Science and understanding evolves as knowledge and technology produces greater understanding. Science is not static nor perfect.

But you don't do your own dentistry or surgery do you? Maybe you do? Do you want an expert surgeon who has been trained properly? Or would the neighbor down the road be sufficient.

Who do you want doing climate science? Those who who have been trained and have the knowledge to understand it or the neighbor down the road who doesn't know the difference between weather and climate but has an opinion?

It's no surprise that most of the opposition to doing anything about climate change is also coming from people who are most likely to be skeptical of the science. Most of your opposition and skepticism is obviously politically based. Its the radical anti-science, anti-evidence and anti government fringe at work. Prone to conspiracy theories, its a fraud, a scam etc, etc..

Hardly anyone takes the climate change denial bullshit seriously. You sure don't hear any Canadian politicians like Moe, Ford, Kenney, Mckay or O'toole saying the science is flawed do you?

Give up! Nobody is listening!