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 19:23 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
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 19:29 |
| 08-02-2016 19:51 | |
| 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 19:54 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has not been caused by human action: . |
| 08-02-2016 19:59 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
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 20:00 |
| 08-02-2016 20:26 | |
One Punch Man ★☆☆☆☆(143) |
Surface Detail wrote: 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 20:50 | |
| spot★★★★☆ (1323) |
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 21:05 | |
Earthling ★☆☆☆☆(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 spokesmenGlobal warming remains an hypothesis. |
| 08-02-2016 21:06 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(22614) |
Surface Detail wrote: 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 Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-02-2016 21:08 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22614) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Except in the United States, where they are trying to ban it. Neither CO2 or CFCs are dangerous. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-02-2016 21:12 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22614) |
spot wrote: 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 Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-02-2016 21:31 | |
| One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (143) |
spot wrote: 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 21:35 |
| 08-02-2016 22:04 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Into the Night wrote:Surface Detail wrote: 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 22:17 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14885) |
Surface Detail wrote: Are you doing the "science is determined by subjective consensus and democratic vote" thing again, despite science saying otherwise? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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 23:07 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
IBdaMann wrote:Surface Detail wrote: 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 01:30 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
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 01:31 |
| 09-02-2016 02:04 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22614) |
Surface Detail wrote:Into the Night wrote:Surface Detail wrote: Did I say anything about forcing them? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-02-2016 02:06 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22614) |
Surface Detail wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Surface Detail wrote: 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 Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-02-2016 04:37 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Into the Night wrote:Surface Detail wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Surface Detail wrote: 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 05:16 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14885) |
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? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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 08:14 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22614) |
Surface Detail wrote:Into the Night wrote:Surface Detail wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Surface Detail wrote: 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 Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 09-02-2016 08:16 |
Join the debate there is no evidence more CO2 traps more heat and heats the Earth:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium.. | 451 | 27-11-2024 03:56 |
| Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat | 326 | 07-11-2023 19:16 |
| Some can take the heat, and | 2 | 14-10-2023 13:26 |
| More evidence that climate change is FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | 117 | 28-03-2023 18:11 |
| There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2 | 533 | 30-01-2023 07:22 |