Prominent Scientist Claim Climate Claims Irrational

[Putncalls]

You said conspiracy I never mentioned the word.

[admin]

You said conspiracy I never mentioned the word.

The question wasn't posed to you but to kommoncents, perhaps that explains. Even so, you chose to answer it, and since the word is clearly in the question, the onus is on you to explain the giant conspiracy between a large majority of scientists and governments in the examples you gave.

[admin]

It's interesting when uninformed belief systems clash. In the case of climate, the debate rages on without a discussion of facts. Instead of facts, we substitute belief systems, propaganda held out as facts and insults of those that believe differently.

And then there are all the PC phrases and words like pollution, CO2 is a pollutant, green house gases (negative connotation....on whose authority?), rising temperatures (based upon what reliable data), rising sea waters, efficient markets (is there such a thing?), man-caused climate change (used to be global warming, then climate chaos, now back to global warming although the actual temperatures don't support this...kinda arrogant to believe man can actually have more effect on Earth than the sun), deniers, polluters, obvious industry propaganda (haven't heard obvious government propaganda here yet though), pollution is free, (resolving climate) is a market based solution, denigrate the 3 scientists that present their opinions (because they are not the same as one's opinion), and on and on and on.....

I'd hate to try to guess what the various posters' political leanings are but I bet I can with a high degree of accuracy.

This stuff is fairly curious. Terms like pollution, efficient markets, green house gasses, CO2 are all common and have little, if anything to do with belief systems, uniformed or not, nor should political leanings come into it. I simply accept what is the consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists, like I think, as a layperson, one should do, not only in climate science, but in any science.

It's not "politically" correct, it's scientifically correct.

[kommonsents]

It's interesting when uninformed belief systems clash. In the case of climate, the debate rages on without a discussion of facts. Instead of facts, we substitute belief systems, propaganda held out as facts and insults of those that believe differently. And then there are all the PC phrases and words like pollution, CO2 is a pollutant, green house gases (negative connotation....on whose authority?), rising temperatures (based upon what reliable data), rising sea waters, efficient markets (is there such a thing?), man-caused climate change (used to be global warming, then climate chaos, now back to global warming although the actual temperatures don't support this...kinda arrogant to believe man can actually have more effect on Earth than the sun), deniers, polluters, obvious industry propaganda (haven't heard obvious government propaganda here yet though), pollution is free, (resolving climate) is a market based solution, denigrate the 3 scientists that present their opinions (because they are not the same as one's opinion), and on and on and on..... I'd hate to try to guess what the various posters' political leanings are but I bet I can with a high degree of accuracy.

But you have all the answers, right?

I simply refer to simple facts.

1) CO2 being a greenhouse gas

2) The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere having gone up tremendously from the industrial revolution onwards

3) The vast  majority of climate scientists attributing this to our behaviour putting millions of tons of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses, like methane) in the air

4) Any other explanation falls way short (see here) 

It is curious that people who would normally accept standard science in other fields suddenly think they know better here.

I have a simple question for you:

You expoused a giant conspiracy theory here a couple of weeks ago, arguing it's all politicians in bed with scientists in order to hoist the hoax on climate change upon us in order to maintain their funding.

First off, if true, this must be a conspiracy on a truly epic scale, involving most governments and most climate scientists, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, almost all universities, etc. etc.

My question is simply this: can you point out any such conspiracy on anywhere near similar scale? Thanks.

Sure.

Mainstream medicine.

[ArtM72]

The Co2 is pollution argument hasn't been settled as we can see from JFT's post here. They still get nothing because this law has virtually no effect on the rest of the world AND The US has been moving from coal to NG for many other reasons and will continue to do so. I also pointed out that there is corruption involved in the effort to protect us.

I suppose the existence of corporate corruption is also reason to close the NYSE, or is proportionality something worth considering in one's arguments?

Using JFT's posts to confirm the CO2 pollution science hasn't been largely settled is the same logic as that justifying the Flat Earth Society and those who believe the Apollo missions never reached the moon. And while the stolen email controversy at the University of East Anglia was investigated by eight separate committees with no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct ever found, East Anglia still remains a rallying cry of AGW skeptics.

True, the US's CO2 law doesn't directly affect the rest of the world neither do Germany's utility laws promoting the world's most extensive photovoltaic power generation capacity (or the UK's recent decision to shut down coal fired power generation).  National laws can and do affect the rest of the world.  It might sound good when you say, "this law has virtually no effecton on the rest of the world", but such a statement doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

Saw a good quote yesterday.  "Ignorance leads to misunderstanding which leads to mistrust and then to fear.  Fear leads to hatred and it is the hatred that leads to violence".  Not directly related to this discussion as it was offered as the reason for the level of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country but there are political parallels to be seen between the two issues.

[ArtM72]

It's interesting when uninformed belief systems clash. In the case of climate, the debate rages on without a discussion of facts. Instead of facts, we substitute belief systems, propaganda held out as facts and insults of those that believe differently. And then there are all the PC phrases and words like pollution, CO2 is a pollutant, green house gases (negative connotation....on whose authority?), rising temperatures (based upon what reliable data), rising sea waters, efficient markets (is there such a thing?), man-caused climate change (used to be global warming, then climate chaos, now back to global warming although the actual temperatures don't support this...kinda arrogant to believe man can actually have more effect on Earth than the sun), deniers, polluters, obvious industry propaganda (haven't heard obvious government propaganda here yet though), pollution is free, (resolving climate) is a market based solution, denigrate the 3 scientists that present their opinions (because they are not the same as one's opinion), and on and on and on..... I'd hate to try to guess what the various posters' political leanings are but I bet I can with a high degree of accuracy.

If you are really interested in answering many of your questions I'd invite you to spend some time at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/.

[admin]

My question is simply this: can you point out any such conspiracy on anywhere near similar scale? Thanks.

Sure.

Mainstream medicine.

Actually you might be on to something here, but you'll have to elaborate a bit on what you consider "mainstream medicine". It has to be a conspiracy involving most governments and scientists.

[kommonsents]

My question is simply this: can you point out any such conspiracy on anywhere near similar scale? Thanks.

Sure.

Mainstream medicine.

Actually you might be on to something here, but you'll have to elaborate a bit on what you consider "mainstream medicine". It has to be a conspiracy involving most governments and scientists.

You seem to be moving the goal posts here.

You asked for a "conspiracy on anywhere near similar scale" and I gave you one that is even larger, more serious in its impact on most humans, costs to society, corruption, and ongoing length of time.

Why do I have to "elaborate" for you and what is it you need explained?

[admin]

My question is simply this: can you point out any such conspiracy on anywhere near similar scale? Thanks.

Sure.

Mainstream medicine.

Actually you might be on to something here, but you'll have to elaborate a bit on what you consider "mainstream medicine". It has to be a conspiracy involving most governments and scientists.

You seem to be moving the goal posts here.

You asked for a "conspiracy on anywhere near similar scale" and I gave you one that is even larger, more serious in its impact on most humans, costs to society, corruption, and ongoing length of time.

Why do I have to "elaborate" for you and what is it you need explained?

Because you seem to think it's self-explanatory, which it most definitely is not. I don't even know what you have in mind, as it happens. I don't even know what you mean by "mainstream" medicine, although I have the distinct feeling I opened something like a Pandorra's box here, sorry for that folks.

Just as a reminder, I'll close the thread here at midnight and move it to another forum (as I said before) as I think we're already taxing the patience of many (although there is an easy remedy for that, but still..)

[kommonsents]

My question is simply this: can you point out any such conspiracy on anywhere near similar scale? Thanks.

Sure.

Mainstream medicine.

Actually you might be on to something here, but you'll have to elaborate a bit on what you consider "mainstream medicine". It has to be a conspiracy involving most governments and scientists.

You seem to be moving the goal posts here.

You asked for a "conspiracy on anywhere near similar scale" and I gave you one that is even larger, more serious in its impact on most humans, costs to society, corruption, and ongoing length of time.

Why do I have to "elaborate" for you and what is it you need explained?

Because you seem to think it's self-explanatory, which it most definitely is not. I don't even know what you have in mind, as it happens. I don't even know what you mean by "mainstream" medicine, although I have the distinct feeling I opened something like a Pandorra's box here, sorry for that folks.

Just as a reminder, I'll close the thread here at midnight and move it to another forum (as I said before) as I think we're already taxing the patience of many (although there is an easy remedy for that, but still..)

Sorry, I thought mainstream medicine was a common term that most understand.  Apparently not.

MainStream Medicine, MSM, is that  collective field of medicine using primarily pharmaceutical drugs, chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery as its primary tools.  Backed by most governments and their agencies and by many world organizations.

It typically forms the basis of single payer and government provided medical care as well as the type of medicine accepted by most insurance companies providing medical insurance.

The MSM system is policed and supported by the various governments and their agencies such as the US FDA and alternative medicine is strongly suppressed or even not permitted in many cases.

MSM uses selective and pseudo science to back its agendas similar to the man-caused climate change crowd and their agendas.