Remember me
▼ Content

there is no evidence more CO2 traps more heat and heats the Earth


there is no evidence more CO2 traps more heat and heats the Earth08-02-2016 18:23
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
just like there is no evidence God exists, it's only make belief

Chinese and Indian and Russian scientists do not believe in global warming. In terms of numbers, they make up the vast majority of the world's scientists. That's 97% don't believe in global warming

Edited on 08-02-2016 18:29
08-02-2016 18:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action:

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
08-02-2016 18:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action:

.
08-02-2016 18:59
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
If CO2 is dangerous it would have been banned like CFC. CO2 is not dangerous that's why it's legal all over the world.
Edited on 08-02-2016 19:00
08-02-2016 19:26
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(112)
Surface Detail wrote:
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action:

Not sure about scientific institutions, but John Cook of Skeptical Science found an "overwhelming" consensus of 64 papers out of 4,011 that humans were the "primary" cause of global warming:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/

The debate is over. Warmists have 64 papers!
08-02-2016 19:50
spot
★★★☆☆
(949)
If you actually bother to read what you are linking it's not as straightforward as you seem to make out.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=3495294B42710D1EBDCC83168DFCE8E8.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees'


Basically the take home lesson is this issue is not in dispute amongst scientists.

However;

In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen


I found that interesting, some people seem to be out to deliberately muddy the waters on this.
08-02-2016 20:05
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen
Global warming remains an hypothesis.
08-02-2016 20:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
Surface Detail wrote:
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action:

.


You are again quoting political organizations. It does not represent the opinions of all the members of that organization.

You keep making this compositional fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
08-02-2016 20:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If CO2 is dangerous it would have been banned like CFC. CO2 is not dangerous that's why it's legal all over the world.


Except in the United States, where they are trying to ban it.

Neither CO2 or CFCs are dangerous.


The Parrot Killer
08-02-2016 20:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
spot wrote:
If you actually bother to read what you are linking it's not as straightforward as you seem to make out.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=3495294B42710D1EBDCC83168DFCE8E8.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees'


Basically the take home lesson is this issue is not in dispute amongst scientists.

However;

In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen


I found that interesting, some people seem to be out to deliberately muddy the waters on this.

Western Fuels needn't have bothered. Scientific theories are never fact. There is no mechanism of proof in science.

There is no consensus in science either, and your statement that all scientists agree with Global Warming is just plain hooey.


The Parrot Killer
08-02-2016 20:31
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(112)
spot wrote:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=3495294B42710D1EBDCC83168DFCE8E8.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees'


Basically the take home lesson is this issue is not in dispute amongst scientists.

However;

In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen


I found that interesting, some people seem to be out to deliberately muddy the waters on this.

It is that straightforward. The papers in Category 4 that had 'No Position' were excluded and only papers stating a postion on AGW were included in the 97%. Category 1 (with only 64 papers) were papers acknowledging that "humans are the primary cause of global warming" (i.e. over 50%) and Category 2 were papers acknowledging that "anthropogenic global warming is a fact" without quantifying how much, but it must have been under 50% as these papers were not included in Category 1, and Category 3 were papers simply acknowledging that "greenhouse gas emissions cause warming", while Categories 5 and 6 rejected anthropogenic global warming. Categories 2, 3, 5, and 6 included 4,011 papers and Category 1 included only 64 papers. Therefore the consensus that humans are the "primary cause of global warming" is 1.6% (i.e. 64/4,011). Skeptics such as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, including many others, would agree with Category 2 and 3, that "anthropogenic global warming is a fact" and that "greenhouse gas emissions cause warming".

If you actually bothered to read what you are linking

It is you who should be bothered to read what I have linked.
Edited on 08-02-2016 20:35
08-02-2016 21:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action:

.


You are again quoting political organizations. It does not represent the opinions of all the members of that organization.

You keep making this compositional fallacy.

Oh, sorry, I forgot my tinfoil hat. Yes, of course. Every single scientific organisation in the world has been secretly forced to issue statements on climate change that conflict with the consensus of its membership. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Now, about those supposed moon landings...
08-02-2016 21:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action:

.

Are you doing the "science is determined by subjective consensus and democratic vote" thing again, despite science saying otherwise?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-02-2016 22:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action:

.

Are you doing the "science is determined by subjective consensus and democratic vote" thing again, despite science saying otherwise?

No, that's just you getting the wrong end of the stick as usual. Expert consensus is not the same as democratic opinion.

Say, for example, a group of civil engineers had examined a bridge and agreed that it was unsafe to cross. Would you then sniffily declare that physics is not a matter of subjective consensus and cross anyway? Because that's what you're doing here.
09-02-2016 00:30
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
The 5 senses are the poor man's science. The poor man may not have had a day of school, but his 5 senses tells him, hmm, it's cooler now than before despite more CO2. You put 1 and 1 together, you get 2. That means CO2 causes cooling, not warming. Science has always been about observation rather than theory. Doesn't matter how elaborate a theory is, without observation to back it up, no layman will accept it.
Edited on 09-02-2016 00:31
09-02-2016 01:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action:

.


You are again quoting political organizations. It does not represent the opinions of all the members of that organization.

You keep making this compositional fallacy.

Oh, sorry, I forgot my tinfoil hat. Yes, of course. Every single scientific organisation in the world has been secretly forced to issue statements on climate change that conflict with the consensus of its membership. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Now, about those supposed moon landings...


Did I say anything about forcing them?


The Parrot Killer
09-02-2016 01:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action:

.

Are you doing the "science is determined by subjective consensus and democratic vote" thing again, despite science saying otherwise?

No, that's just you getting the wrong end of the stick as usual. Expert consensus is not the same as democratic opinion.

Say, for example, a group of civil engineers had examined a bridge and agreed that it was unsafe to cross. Would you then sniffily declare that physics is not a matter of subjective consensus and cross anyway? Because that's what you're doing here.


Say, for example, a group of civil engineers had examined a bridge and agreed that it WAS safe to cross. You cross and the bridge falls into the water. Would you then blithely declare that consensus was right?

We have the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, you see.


The Parrot Killer
09-02-2016 03:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action:

.

Are you doing the "science is determined by subjective consensus and democratic vote" thing again, despite science saying otherwise?

No, that's just you getting the wrong end of the stick as usual. Expert consensus is not the same as democratic opinion.

Say, for example, a group of civil engineers had examined a bridge and agreed that it was unsafe to cross. Would you then sniffily declare that physics is not a matter of subjective consensus and cross anyway? Because that's what you're doing here.


Say, for example, a group of civil engineers had examined a bridge and agreed that it WAS safe to cross. You cross and the bridge falls into the water. Would you then blithely declare that consensus was right?

We have the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, you see.

Ah, I see. So because the engineers got it wrong that time, you'll never take the advice of engineers again? Well, good luck with that. By the way, Tacoma Narrows Bridge death toll: 0.
09-02-2016 04:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:Say, for example, a group of civil engineers had examined a bridge and agreed that it was unsafe to cross.

Say, for example that a group of engineers were paid by the government to write a paper declaring that a perfectly good bridge was nonetheless unsafe...for purely political purposes.

If you were shown the egregiously faulty report and were to learn that their numbers were fudged and fabricated, ...you would still willingly allow yourself to be duped.

Let me ask you, if a planet is receiving a constant energy stream, would you believe the first scientist who tells you that the planet's temperature will increase but its radiance will decrease?

Answer: Yes, you'll eat it up.

That's where we stand. You have your religious beliefs that do not jive with science, and that's OK because all religions have their miracles, their divine entities, their magical forces, etc..

Your problem is that you have a particularly nasty religious dogma, i.e. one that insists that it is science. You're left stuck trying to explain WACKY violations of physics as adhering to physics. You're left trying to explain how Global Warming changed its mind from stashing excess energy in the atmosphere to stashing it at the bottom of the ocean where there aren't any thermometers to verify the WACKY assertion. You're left trying to explain how the thriving polar bear population is somehow not thriving, just as you're left trying to explain how polar ice is disappearing by accumulating.

I never press anyone on why s/he chose the religion s/he did. I still feel sorry for those whose reason is that s/he was duped by social engineering.

Anyway, your underlying, core belief of "greenhouse effect" is flat out false from a science viewpoint. It's about time you just joined other faiths in being honest with yourself and admit to yourself that it is simply what you want to believe and just go on your merry way. No harm, no foul.

Surface Detail wrote: Ah, I see. So because the engineers got it wrong that time, you'll never take the advice of engineers again?

You dodged the question and you instead turned it into a question of faith.

I can tell you that I wouldn't trust those "engineers" or their particular process in the future. My faith in them would be shot. In fact, I would certainly ask about other bridges that were similarly built. I would question. I would doubt. I would not maintain any blind, unquestioning faith.

So why would you?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-02-2016 07:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action:

.

Are you doing the "science is determined by subjective consensus and democratic vote" thing again, despite science saying otherwise?

No, that's just you getting the wrong end of the stick as usual. Expert consensus is not the same as democratic opinion.

Say, for example, a group of civil engineers had examined a bridge and agreed that it was unsafe to cross. Would you then sniffily declare that physics is not a matter of subjective consensus and cross anyway? Because that's what you're doing here.


Say, for example, a group of civil engineers had examined a bridge and agreed that it WAS safe to cross. You cross and the bridge falls into the water. Would you then blithely declare that consensus was right?

We have the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, you see.

Ah, I see. So because the engineers got it wrong that time, you'll never take the advice of engineers again? Well, good luck with that. By the way, Tacoma Narrows Bridge death toll: 0.


I'll take the advice of engineers when they do the work properly and document it properly. Until then no, I don't. I would certainly not trust that group of engineers for awhile.

If a single engineer disagrees with the others, I'll listen to what he has to say.

Consensus by itself does not make things right. It often is wrong. That's why it's not part of the scientific method.

BTW, Tacoma Narrows bridge kills people every year, either from accidents on the bridge itself or from people jumping from it.

Death toll at time of collapse: 1 (a dog)


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-02-2016 07:16




Join the debate there is no evidence more CO2 traps more heat and heats the Earth:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 07:12
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?4006-09-2018 18:07
CO2 is an acid--so, what's the problem?2011-07-2018 18:16
Work and Heat8126-06-2018 20:52
Is there an equation available for black body irradiated heat loss vs. font?023-06-2018 08:01
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact