A lie and a typical lie pushed by pseudoscientists. Another typical feature of pseudoscience is mistakes that always go in one direction - exaggerated effects of CO2 on our climate. Another feature of pseudoscience is impossibly tortured data analysis and data manipulation, such as the calculations of global average temperatures.
Don’t waste your time or brain cells on this, you’re not even close to being able to defend how climate models can quantify the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere on anything. Just make bold assertions and ad hominem attacks on critics, that’s the way of pseudoscience.
More partisan nonsense! Look at who produced this piece of garbage to know what the motives are behind this propaganda. The fact of the matter that people like you actually believe no democrats work in the interests of Oil and gas companies further exposes you naivety on the subject matter.
Brace yourself for the solar minimum. I wonder what they will spin this now, after the “climate change” fad has run its course. Gonna start a new post so other people can see this as well.
You’re making the assumption that CO2 is responsible for that “warming”. I love when people look at 100 years of data and claim the sky is falling.
That said, let’s pretend what you say is correct, that we were headed for an ice age and CO2 is causing warming. In what world is that a BAD thing? You do realize that an ice age would wipe out billions of people, right? Instead, the planet is turning greener and there’s more food production.
Absolute BS. The 97% has been debunked over and over, yet people still repeat that garbage.
No one objects to “green energy”, we simply understand that moving to it before it’s viable will result in the deaths of millions and millions of people through starvation.
That said, I often find that people touting green energy aren’t really aware of what that means, so please, what form of energy should we shift to? Be specific.
Assumption based on plant growth, fossil records, geological formations, glacier activity, etc. For instance, a CO2 level of 7000 would have impacts on the size and abundance of plants. With that said, you’re correct that it’s a SWAG. No one knows for sure what it was back millions of years ago, we can only guess.
Oh, but here’s the fun part. Whether it’s correct or not, it’s the data people use when talking about global warming so it’s fun to shove in their face because it directly disputes their conclusion.
In a 2007 book chapter, Oreskes infers that the lack of expressed dissent “demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor.” The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted “might believe that current climate change is natural.” It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it. On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number.
The most influential and most debated article was the 2013 paper by Cook, et al., which popularized the 97% figure. The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content. I do not intend to reopen the debate over this paper. Instead, let’s consider it along with some of the numerous other surveys available.
Just the fact that it changed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” says it all. They are searching for the right euphemism for their pseudoscience.
They’ve define “climate” in a way that makes it impossible to quantify. It’s a 30-year running average. That frees them up to make predictions that can in no way be validated, so why not project 1000 years in the future? The only thing that matters to these charlatans is making unscientific claims that are scary for political purposes.
The greenhouse effect is a real thing. That’s how psuedoscience works, they take some principle that everyone accepts, take a few disguised leaps of faith and they’re in the twilight zone.
