Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

[Chris]

What I consider a decent breakdown of the various groups concerned about climate change. Disagree? Please do in substance.\



For your convenience, the groups are 3:

Group 1: Fossil fuel burning causing CO2 emissions increase and might dangerously heat the planet.

Group 2: Skeptics of Group 1's thinking because many factors contribute and none are fully understood.

Between Groups 1 & 2 are the following agreements:

1. Climate changes.
2. CO2 is necessary for life, increases should lead to some warming.
3. CO2 has been increasing since the Little Ice Age.
4. Global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8°F but only since the 60s have man's greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.
5. Given complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global warming or its impact can be made.

Oh, group 3, the media, politicians and other alarmists.

[Private Pickle]

Scientists say whatever their grants tell them to say...

[Chris]

Scientists say whatever their grants tell them to say...

Not all. That one didn't.

[Private Pickle]

Not all. That one didn't.

Hard to tell... Depends on where they got their funding.

[Common Sense]

Dr. Lindzen, who was the "expert" in the video, is the go to expert for group 2. The reality is group 2 is quite small and apart from Lindzen, there aren't a ton you hear from. It should be noted too that Lindzen is a know contrarian and has gone on record stating he doesn't think smoking and cancer are related.

The vast majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations agree that we are having a direct impact on our climate.

As to the claim that emissions only hit a significant level in the 60's, by the 1930's 100 million metric tonns of carbon emissions were released by man each year. Now that number is closer to the 650 million metric tonns.

[Common Sense]

Scientists say whatever their grants tell them to say...

That's not true.

[Private Pickle]

That's not true.

It's how it works. For example grants given by the Feds will require a goal of proving something instead of actually going through the scientific process. Those requirements of proof are typically required to push a political agenda or legislation.

[Common Sense]

It's how it works. For example grants given by the Feds will require a goal of proving something instead of actually going through the scientific process. Those requirements of proof are typically required to push a political agenda or legislation.

That's not true either.

[Chris]

Hard to tell... Depends on where they got their funding.

Sounds retired, but taught 30 years at MIT.

[Chris]

Dr. Lindzen, who was the "expert" in the video, is the go to expert for group 2. The reality is group 2 is quite small and apart from Lindzen, there aren't a ton you hear from. It should be noted too that Lindzen is a know contrarian and has gone on record stating he doesn't think smoking and cancer are related.

The vast majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations agree that we are having a direct impact on our climate.

As to the claim that emissions only hit a significant level in the 60's, by the 1930's 100 million metric tonns of carbon emissions were released by man each year. Now that number is closer to the 650 million metric tonns.

Your constant ad hom of people who present ideas is really tiresome.

Two, science is not by consensus. Never has been, not in its authoritarian beginnings, it spell of induction, nor its current falsification. To say it is is to demoinstrate lack of understanding what science is and how it works.

There's a difference the 1030's level and the 1960's SIGNIFICANT level: "only since the 60s have man's greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role." Nice dissembling.