Any consensus on something as complicated as the entire climate of the planet is absurd, arrogant garbage.Most people who speak on this issue have zilch for knowledge on fluid dynamics and thermodynamics.
As someone who writes these papers, let me tell you that the process is corrupt to the core and motivated by scientists and overrated, under-acheiving professors, post-docs and graduate students.
Oh, so I take it then you’re also against abortion in all cases and against so-called gay “marriage”? Because we can disagree with the Pope on climate change but not on those issues.
Try the 1st Amendment. Funny how you target Mormons and not Islam or Black Liberation Theology.
That is not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is a consensus on one simple aspect of the climate. And therefore it is not absurd arrogant garbage, but is quite reasonable.
Yes, the slope does flatten, coinciding with the negative trend for China.
Yes, we are making progress in slowing down the rise in CO2. But CO2 is still rising. Unless we get the CO2 concentration graph to flatten out, we are still heading toward an even warmer climate. We just aren’t headed there as fast as we were.LeafByNiggle:
Yes, the slope does flatten, coinciding with the negative trend for China.
I appreciated how it showed that the EU, US and Russia have a solid negative slope.
I thought failing out of divinity school made him an expert.
That is exactly what is going on and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t understand even the most basics of climate science.
Nope.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/world/europe/pope-climate-daca-trump-colombia.html?smid=tw-share
What is “exactly what is going on?” Are scientists claiming a full understanding of the “entire climate of the planet?” You have not shown that at all. One does not need to understand the entire climate of the planet to make the claim that the climate is generally getting warmer. It is not that complicated.LeafByNiggle:
That is exactly what is going on and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t understand even the most basics of climate science.
Yes, they are describing long term trends. What fault are they supposedly in need of being “let off” from?
So you say, but you have not justified that statement.
Actually the chain of propositions is quite short, and each link in that chain has been separately tested. So it is quite tenable.
So ignore Al Gore. Listen to the scientists who do have scientific credentials.
Since I don’t have the book, perhaps you could tell me what percentage of scientists recant global warming theory when they retire.
Nope.
Just as I suspected. There is no convincing statistic - only some cherry-picked examples of a few who have decided to express their political view by denying the theory.
Actually not. I’ve read the book. None of the scientists featured by Solomon have any apparent political motivation. They just dispute some aspect of the CO2 theory of GW on scientific grounds.
OK, then maybe you can tell me what percentage of retired scientists recant global warming theory?LeafByNiggle:
Actually not. I’ve read the book. None of the scientists featured by Solomon have any apparent political motivation. They just dispute some aspect of the CO2 theory of GW on scientific grounds.