The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

The clue was in italics.

Black Pigeon Speaks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNQQM3OEJE4

What did you think of the game theory view of world trade with Germany and China?



edit:
Whelp, we can sit around and ponder the temps, but supicious0bservers has moved on to more existential concerns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvjJqIXYT1w

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cje2LJJKS8

It makes this constant rain of water and pine needles seem trivial.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Check out Zapata Offshore Oil,Arbusto Energy,Halliburton,John Hinckley's father's association to George H.W. Bush,Averill Harriman & Prescott Bush's,Berlin offices-brokered,tetraethyl lead deal with Hitler,Texaco's refueling of U-Boats after Pearl Harbor,C. Boyden Gray's contribution to fine carbon particulate matter and epidemic death...................it'll make 'Ozone Man's' father look like a saint.

I agree.


However, Gore’s father isn’t who I was referring to.

Al Gore and his partner from Goldman Sachs tried (still trying) to pull off the biggest scam in known history.

The Carbon Credit scheme...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#58b5b0fb32dc



That’s the “Inconvenient Truth”...







>

[redneck]

.

The Positive Externalities
of Carbon Dioxide

Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production

http://www.co2science.org/education/...Production.pdf




>

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

The Positive Externalities
of Carbon Dioxide

Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production

http://www.co2science.org/education/...Production.pdf




>

Oh no, not that again.
That is a statistical analysis of global crop growth versus CO2 emissions.
Yes, there is more crop now - because there are more farmers and more mouths to feed. If there's a shortage more forests gets burned and converted to farmland...

The report states that thousands of studies have shown the beneficiary effect of CO2 - without naming even one.
But we know the relationship is not simple - as these studies reveal. There are benefits in certain dry areas, but also massive problems in others. Some crops thrive, some cope, some die.
The danger is in the soil too. Acidification inhibits the plants ability to absorb essential nutrients.

The relationship between c02sciences.com and global warming, or simple plain truth for that matter, is simple however:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center..._Global_Change

The Center was founded and is run by Craig D. Idso, along with Sherwood B. Idso, his father, and Keith E. Idso, his brother. They came from backgrounds in agriculture and climate. According to the Idsos, they became involved in the global warming controversy through their study of earth's temperature sensitivity to radiative perturbations and plant responses to elevated CO2 levels and carbon sequestration. The Center sharply disputes the consensus scientific opinion on climate change shown in IPCC assessment reports, and believes that global warming will be beneficial to mankind.

In other words, http://www.co2science.org/ is a lie factory.

Anyone can put anything on the internet, make it look neat and convincing.
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/

More CO2 is good for plants. And the earth is flat.

[redneck]

.

So everything I post is a lie ?

And everything you and the other believers post is gospel ?

???

ROTFLMAO

CRAIG D. IDSO is the founder and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and currently serves as Chairman of the Center’s board of directors. Dr. Idso received his B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars.

So the guy has a B.S., M.S. and a Ph.D.

And he’s unqualified to have a opinion ?



Oh yeah I forgot.

He’s not part of the “cult”.

My bad...




>

[RedDevil]

No. He can have an opinion. But his site, and his organization, is not neutral. At all.

So I wrote his site is a lie factory, and that annoys you. Sorry for annoying you. But I only want to make clear there's no truth on that site.

He claims CO2 is downright good for plants, basing that claim on statistics and 'thousands of studies'.
But crop statistics say nothing about the effect of CO2 on plants, due to the other factors at work, and field studies and lab tests show the relation is actually mixed and troublesome.
So his claim isn't based on anything.

And I'm not a 'believer'. That's your wording. I formed my opinion on data.

And it's not a cult. Not if 97% of scientists agree about something. Mind when a scientists isn't sure, (s)he would not likely form a strong opinion about it. So if 97% commit to a view, that is something.

I would never suggest everything YOU post is a lie. But frankly, these last postings were below your level.

[oil pan 4]

At one time 99.9% of scientists believed in luminous aether or quintessence.
Even Albert Einstein believed a universe with out aether is impossible.
So that shows you how much a "consensus" is worth.
Man driven climate change will be right there beside quintessence aether soon.
And just like with aether, man driven global warming will be brought down by its proponents.

[RedDevil]

The point with the universe and subatomic particles is that we still don't know how they work. The idea of ether was logical, because of the wavelike properties of small particles.
If you can explain how gravity works and relates to quantum physics, please let us know. You can have a Nobel prize or two as a bonus.

Finding evidence of the influence of human activities on the climate is easy. The occurrence of carbon isotopes in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is but one obvious clue. There is a clear relationship between CO2 levels and temperature in the past, and no reason to assume that the gradual global average temperature rise isn't caused by our carbon emissions.
And that's just one aspect.

[oil pan 4]

Man driven climate change also seemed logical too.

Just because old carbon isotopes that were obviously released by man are found some where doesn't prove man driven climate change.
That's like saying because man went to the moon proves that there is or was life on mars.
They have little to do with each other besides being in the same subject.

[RedDevil]

That does not make sense to me. Sorry, no Nobel prize this time round.

We caused the carbon atoms to be there. We know high carbondioxide levels coincide with a raise in temperature in the past. We understand how CO2 influences the climate by reflecting heat. It all fits.