Radical Environmentalism: Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?

[Raskolnikov]

Actually your logic is flawed:

Your use of “Rightist” and because you used it as a defense - making you a “Leftist” - THROWS your understanding of NORMAL SCIENCE out the window and supports the unproven hypothesis of AGW… as Post-normal science.

Whatever ringil’s position, I do not think denial of AGW is an inherently ‘rightist’ position (in fact, it was Republican Richard Nixon who founded the EPA, was it not? More generally, conservatives only began to adopt the position en masse later on; there was no conservative outdry when Lyndon Johnson publically proclaimed the negative effects of anthropogenic climate change in the 1960s.). It is simply the wrong position.

People like to claim there is a leftist conspiracy behing climate change. In fact, theis is reversed causality. It is because conservative politicians have largely opposed action and legislation against pollution and damage to the environment that so many climate scientists and people concerned about these issues went in the other direction. Many would likely conservatives, if conservatives didn’t so often hate their guts and try to foil them at every turn.

 

[jilly4ski]

No, I didn’t. Caught me off guard. I was looking for a figure, I had a ballpark idea from chemistry class, but needed the citation. I will see what the latest *Nature *or *Science *articles have to say about it. I will resist the temptation to simply check wikipedia.

This hypocrisy cuts both ways, and more in one direction I think than the other. The fact is, people will not apply the same moral principles to what they choose to consume or its effects on other people that they do otherwise in their daily lives. In fact, it’s not limited to environmental pollution. People who condemn murder will nonetheless by products from companies that commit the crime half way around the world. Or who loud generosity will refuse to buy a product from a company that pays its workers better than others because their prices are a little higher.

Nobody praises and calls corporations who kill villagers for profit morally superior. But this is exactly what pro global warming activists and lynnvinc do, if they are acting to reduce the effects of global warming. But we can’t even prove that people are dying or going through adverse affects from global warming, for many reasons (can’t prove it is man made, and can’t attribute specific events to global warming). Those who are skeptical about global warming or even only about the measures taking to reverse it, do not claim to take the higher moral ground (unless warranted like people getting killed in the name of global warming).

 

[Raskolnikov]

You may have to reassert the essence of the argument again for me to get on track. I haven’t been active on this thread for but one page, you may notice. What is the proposed significance of the half-life (residence time, whatever) of a carbon dioxide molecule? What concerns me is the balance. That is, the rate at which CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere vs. the rate at which it is removed.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Nobody praises and calls corporations who kill villagers for profit morally superior. But this is exactly what pro global warming activists and lynnvinc do, if they are acting to reduce the effects of global warming. But we can’t even prove that people are dying or going through adverse affects from global warming, for many reasons (can’t prove it is man made, and can’t attribute specific events to global warming). Those who are skeptical about global warming or even only about the measures taking to reverse it, do not claim to take the higher moral ground (unless warranted like people getting killed in the name of global warming).

Given that I think that there is ample evidence that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and will have drastically negative effects on people, I do think it is the superior position. Morally? Not necessarily; intellectually? Absolutely. Disagreeing with the thery is not a moral matter; I presume people disagree due to logical mistakes; some, however, see the evidence plainly and refuse tp accepted for selfish reasons, and they, I think are in a morally inferior position.

Would you disavow Christ if someone killed in his name? Or the principles of freedome and democracy, because some people murder in their name? Or would you disavow jet engines because they were invented by Nazi scientists for military purposes? I answer negatively for all cases, and thus refuse to consider my position to be compromised by what others mistakenly do in the name of ideas I agree with.

 

[kimmielittle]

Umm, yes! Just because something happens without human intervention does not mean that human intervention does not effect it. Do you sincerely believe that smoking does not cause lung cancer, just because some people get lung cancer without smoking?

Your problem in logic - was inferring that I held those beliefs.

It is rational to be skeptical, until the conclusion has been demonstated beyond reasonable doubt.

Produce the empirical observational observation moving the unproven hypothesis of AGW - to even theory based.

If it could be done IPCC would have done it.

That point has been reached with anthropogenic global warming. If it were a trial, the evidence would be more than sufficient to warrant a verdict.

I don’t want you as a lawyer Supposition - Speculation - Conjecture - holds very little weight in court. Court demands evidence of support…i.e model projected this AND the evidence supports my model.

And when, pray tell, did “post-normal” science being?

Read the thread. IPCC leads call it post-normal science.

“The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow…exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.”

“…’self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists—and politicians—must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.”

“It has been labelled ‘post-normal’ science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus…on the process of science—who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy…The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity.”

Mike Hulme

Oh he also had this to say:

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia—the university of Climategate fame—is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on “Climate scenario development” for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie

tulsachange.com/ipcc-insider-admits-climate-consensus-claim-was-a-lie

Actually, not wrong. Your article was befuddlingly irrelevant to my post.

Sorry I beffuddled you

Your post tried to say BIG OIL funding of science in one area is bad - IF this is bad - Then BIG OIL funding AGW policy science is BAD. IF you HATE BIG OIL…don’t use hypocritical logical fallacies.

 

[jilly4ski]

Would you disavow Christ if someone killed in his name? Or the principles of freedome and democracy, because some people murder in their name? Or would you disavow jet engines because they were invented by Nazi scientists for military purposes? I answer negatively for all cases, and thus refuse to consider my position to be compromised by what others mistakenly do in the name of ideas I agree with.

???

I did not say that l that lynnvinc should disavow AGW, but rather should disavow the people that kill in its name. Which no one has done btw. And your Nazi example is weird, I would denounce the Nazis for the acts they committed against people, just like I will denounce AGW activists for the acts they commit against people. Or I would denounce the Nazis for developing a flawed jet engine, just like I might at least question and be skeptical of a flawed hypothesis.

Instead lynnvinc boasts that she uses green mountain energy which is “supposedly” 100% wind power. When wind power is causing death and disruption to local ecosystems (raptures and bats). And then claims kimmie is morally deficient because she questions the use of wind power.

 

[kimmielittle]

This hypocrisy cuts both ways, and more in one direction I think than the other. The fact is, people will not apply the same moral principles to what they choose to consume or its effects on other people that they do otherwise in their daily lives. In fact, it’s not limited to environmental pollution. People who condemn murder will nonetheless by products from companies that commit the crime half way around the world. Or who loud generosity will refuse to buy a product from a company that pays its workers better than others because their prices are a little higher.

That is an assumption. A red-herring - strawman fallibly in logic in the content of AGW.

Being Good Stewards does NOT mean that one must believe in AGW.

 

[kimmielittle]

Whatever ringil’s position, I do not think denial of AGW is an inherently ‘rightist’ position (in fact, it was Republican Richard Nixon who founded the EPA, was it not? More generally, conservatives only began to adopt the position en masse later on; there was no conservative outdry when Lyndon Johnson publically proclaimed the negative effects of anthropogenic climate change in the 1960s.). It is simply the wrong position.

People like to claim there is a leftist conspiracy behing climate change. In fact, theis is reversed causality. It is because conservative politicians have largely opposed action and legislation against pollution and damage to the environment that so many climate scientists and people concerned about these issues went in the other direction. Many would likely conservatives, if conservatives didn’t so often hate their guts and try to foil them at every turn.

If we were talking about pollution - you’d have a point.

NO ONE has proved CO2 a pollutant.

 

[kimmielittle]

???

Instead lynnvinc boasts that she uses green mountain energy which is “supposedly” 100% wind power. When wind power is causing death and disruption to local ecosystems (raptures and bats). And then claims kimmie is morally deficient because she questions the use of wind power.

She uses a LOT of High horse language.

 

[kimmielittle]

You may have to reassert the essence of the argument again for me to get on track. I haven’t been active on this thread for but one page, you may notice. What is the proposed significance of the half-life (residence time, whatever) of a carbon dioxide molecule? What concerns me is the balance. That is, the rate at which CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere vs. the rate at which it is removed.

I think, people are confusing Atmospheric time…with / to complete CO2 cycle time.

Only ONE book peer-reviewed??? doubtful - I don’t know anyone that’s peer-reviewed a book - critiqued maybe ] supports the claim of Atmospheric CO2 to 100,000 years.

 

[kimmielittle]

rofl

I really wish this thread could get stickied.

 

[kimmielittle]

I find it really sad that a teenage girl run circles around you intellectually so fast that you have to resort to such nonsense to make yourself feel better about it.

Bruised ego? I think so.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Your problem in logic - was inferring that I held those beliefs.

On the contrary, I was countin on you not holding those beliefs. That was the point. You apply the logic to smoking and lung cancer that you won’t apply to global warming (assuming that you support the former theory and reject the latter).

Produce the empirical observational observation moving the unproven hypothesis of AGW - to even theory based.

If it could be done IPCC would have done it.

It did do it. Scandals - some the fault of the IPCC, others the fault of media sensationalists trying to discredit the science - led you and so many others to view their findings as discredited. No matter though, countless other scientific institutions acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic global warming. See the wikipedia article for a nice list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Sorry to say, it’s not just the IPCC; that’s just a red herring for “skeptics.”

I don’t want you as a lawyer Supposition - Speculation - Conjecture - holds very little weight in court. Court demands evidence of support…i.e model projected this AND the evidence supports my model.
Once again, no it doesn’t. Where to begin. Temperature readings around the globe have supported consistent waming for decades; some scientists have beend reading the evidence since the beginning of the 20th century (Svante Arrhelius is credited with first ‘discovering’ it early in the century; but French mathematician Joseph Fourier proposed demonstrated a proto- greenhouse effect to be true almost 2 centuries ago.). Satelite evidence also confirm this warming. Attempts to refute the warming trend often resort to obsolete satellite readings from defunct technology from the 80s or 90s. Recent satellite evidence, however, confirms this. Therre was also the myth about the urban heat islansd, which most scientists knew about and took into account in their data as far back as several decades ago. The warming trend is indisputable.

That the emission of greenhouse gases contributes significantly to this follows from the laws of chemistry. Do you have an alternative theory to the greenhouse effect? Can you refute Fourier’s mathematica proof that it (or, in his day, something like it; science was not advanced enough to be specific at that time) was necessary to explain the earths ability to retain heat that could not be explained by solar radiation alone? Anyway, increased quantity of greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere, and less is deflected back into space. Chemists have long known about the dynamics of heat absorption by greenhouse gases, and have demonstrated increased heat retention due to increased GGs experimentally. We also know that the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by humans is enough to explain the anomylous behavior of the environment, and contrary to the claims of ‘skeptics,’ many models have met with success at predicting climate behavior. Hansen’s 1988 model (I’m sure you very much dislike Hansen, but evidence is evidence) for example successfully predicted substantial warming over the ensuant 12 years. Not to mention Arrhelius’s prediction in 1896.

Read the thread. IPCC leads call it post-normal science.

? IPCC leads? What are those?

Mike Hulme

Oh he also had this to say:

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie

tulsachange.com/ipcc-insider-admits-climate-consensus-claim-was-a-lie

You’re just confirming the pattern I observed that this whole case seems to rest on the IPCC supposedly being crooked. There are surveys galore out there on the scientific consensus on global warming. Why do you persistently believe that because someone says the IPCC was wrong about something, that the opposite claim must necessarily be true?

Sorry I beffuddled you

Your post tried to say BIG OIL funding of science in one area is bad - IF this is bad - Then BIG OIL funding AGW policy science is BAD. IF you HATE BIG OIL…don’t use hypocritical logical fallacies.

What hypocritical logical fallacies? I said that oil companies have a vested interest in opposing anthropogenic global warming theory at all costs. It is in their interest to do so. I brought this up not because I thought it relevant to the atgument (I like to avoid ad hominems) but to counter you ad hominem attacks on all the scientists who support the AGW theory. Why not look at the planck in your eye? If you reject the bulk of scientific consensus on this matter, why not reject their findings on other matters?

 

[Raskolnikov]

That is an assumption. A red-herring - strawman fallibly in logic in the content of AGW.

Being Good Stewards does NOT mean that one must believe in AGW.

If the good steward wants to be right, and wants to salvage the earth from the most significant environmental threats, then he must indeed aspire to combat the global warming problem. Does he have to? Really, he doesn’t have to do anything. A ‘good steward’ may not believe that chloro-floro-carbons damage the ozone layer. He may be honestly mistaken. He may avoid littering all the time, support other environmental causes, but due to being perhaps not well informed, may honestly not believe in the effect of CFCs on ozone. Is he still a good steward for ignoring a major envrironmental problem because he honestly doesn’t think it’s real? Sure. I can’t fault him too much for it.

But I can fault him or others around him who answer by saying, ‘well then, it’s ok to just ignore it and let him be’ and be willfully ignorant. I would still prefer him to see the truth, and act accordingly. Ideally, all good stewards would acknowledge that AGW is real, because it is, an would want to act accordingly. A good citizen can be forgiven for honestly not knowing one particular law; however, once he begins to willfully ignore it, he becomes less of a good citizen.

If we were talking about pollution - you’d have a point.

NO ONE has proved CO2 a pollutant.

“The poison is in the dose.” In large quanitities and in the wrong places, it is indeed a pollutant; that is proven.

I think, people are confusing Atmospheric time…with / to complete CO2 cycle time.

Only ONE book peer-reviewed??? doubtful - I don’t know anyone that’s peer-reviewed a book - critiqued maybe ] supports the claim of Atmospheric CO2 to 100,000 years.

No, I get the vocabulary now. I’ve a couple articles worth readin on it. The residence time is many times higher than your 5 year claim. 5 years, from what i’ve read, is about the absolute bare minimum. One source on the lower end claims something like 35-90 years:

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last

You referred to David Archer. I found two articles by him on the sucject; his claim was not that the average CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere for 100,000 years. But that some are in fact capbale of doing so for that long. I wondered if the percentage was statistically significant. He claims I think that 20% or so can remain for as long as many thousands of years. Another source I think said 7%. At any rate, is a monority, but a portion of Co2 does in fact remain for thousands of years, according to multiple sources. Did youtake issue with one of these two Archer pieces in particular? Or another one?

annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206

geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf

A couple more articles, one on the RT of CO2 by that horrid, dastardly IPCC:

ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html

agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005JD005888.shtml

 

[kimmielittle]

Quite wrong, it is not lacking, not by any stretch of the imagination. The proposed effects (such as net increase in temperature across the globe) have been observed with undoubtable evidence, as deviating from what “should” be happening were there no anthropogenic effects; mechanisms by which anthropogenic global warming would occur have been discovered and even tested; and these mechanisms are far and away simplest and most viable (by a long shot) explanation for the deviations.

Actually wrong…You would have to ignore science …such as coming out of The Little Ice Age …PDO…AMO …El Nino… La Nina…ENSO etc. These are ALL proven…why should we throw these proven out for an unproven?

agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005WR004184.shtml

Why didn’t the models that project a warming…project a 13 + year cooling? Because they ignored what IS known for what isn’t known.

 

[kimmielittle]

If the good steward wants to be right, and wants to salvage the earth from the most significant environmental threats, then he must indeed aspire to combat the global warming problem.

The “global warming problem” lives in Models only.

“The poison is in the dose.” In large quanitities and in the wrong places, it is indeed a pollutant; that is proven.

Well yes…too much water is harmful?? Where has natural CO2 become a pollutant? Plants can grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1000 ppm CO2.

No, I get the vocabulary now. I’ve a couple articles worth readin on it. The residence time is many times higher than your 5 year claim.

I never made that claim…I said scientist have peer-reviewed articles claiming that - including the link you gave - which states hidden within IPCC is the paper which says 4 years.

There are many more studies below 10 years. But my point was 100.000 years in the atmosphere isn’t supported by the majority of research.

You referred to David Archer. I found two articles by him on the sucject; his claim was not that the average CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere for 100,000 years. But that some are in fact capbale of doing so for that long. I wondered if the percentage was statistically significant. He claims I think that 20% or so can remain for as long as many thousands of years. Another source I think said 7%. At any rate, is a monority, but a portion of Co2 does in fact remain for thousands of years, according to multiple sources. Did youtake issue with one of these two Archer pieces in particular? Or another one?

I take exception to unsubstantiated claims. IN SHORT: It makes no difference what Mr Archer thinks - It’s what Mr Archer can scientifically prove.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Actually wrong…You would have to ignore science …such as coming out of The Little Ice Age …PDO…AMO …El Nino… La Nina…ENSO etc. These are ALL proven…why should we throw these proven out for an unproven?

Your response is once again befuddling. Why would one have to throw them out? A standard textbook on climate modeling I have, Neelin’s “Climate Change and Climate Modeling” focusses mainly on too major groups of factors: the El Nino/La Nina (ENSO) cycles, and anthropogenic global warming. What makes you think they are mutually exclusive? ENSO, you should no, is a cyclical factor on a time scale of several years, with a degree of variance. Why would that negate anthropogenic climate change, which occurs on a much longer time scale and is not a repeating cycle? Same for the ‘Little Ice age.’ How exactly is that and globl warming mutually exclusive? Your logic here is just plain flawed. Imagine someon saying, “we’ve isolated a gene that can cause lung cancer in many people who have it; ergo, smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer, genes do.”? I’ve yet to see a climate scientist claim that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the only factor in climate variation. Nor have you made any effor to show that ENSO and so on sufficiently explain the warming. All you’ve done is stated that they exist, which I nver doubted.

agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005WR004184.shtml

Why didn’t the models that project a warming…project a 13 + year cooling? Because they ignored what IS known for what isn’t known.

 

[Raskolnikov]

kimmielittle:

The “global warming problem” lives in Models only.

Saying so doesn’t make it true.

Well yes…too much water is harmful?? Where has natural CO2 become a pollutant? Plants can grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1000 ppm CO2.

Ever hear of drowning? Ever hear of overwatering your plants? An even better analogy would be oxygen. We need oxygen, and yet, there is a condition for when we get too much of it called hyperoxia.

And would you mind citin that claim about “plants.” Because I happen to know that only some plans increase production under increased CO2 conentrations, not plants in general. Others produce less. And what’s more, phytoplanton, the original producers of the oceans, and the largest source of oxygen on the plant, as well as the foundation of marine ecosystems, produce less due to such effects as increased acification of water or changes in water temperature in their habitat.

csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0728/Vital-ocean-phytoplankton-a-casualty-of-global-warming

sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609094357.htm

Another assumption often made is that plants and animals will adapt to new circumstanes, but that takes far longer than the timescale on which global warming is occurring. I’m looking for an article in “Nature” I read a while ago about one particular plant that had a lot of good details. In the meantime, this will have to do:

skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm

As for your claim about plants in general bein positively effected by global warming, this is quite untrue for many important crops, includin rice, which feeds over a billion people:

cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/28/tech/main626471.shtml

usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/28/how-global-warming-will-hurt-crops

 

[Raskolnikov]

I never made that claim…I said scientist have peer-reviewed articles claiming that - including the link you gave - which states hidden within IPCC is the paper which says 4 years.

There are many more studies below 10 years. But my point was 100.000 years in the atmosphere isn’t supported by the majority of research.

Even David Archer, the apparent antagonist here, never claimed 100,000 years to be the average RT of CO2. He claimed a certain percentage of CO2 ‘survives’ that long in the atmosphere, and he explains it in the articles I posted. The other ones put the average RT at a nmber much much higher than 5 or even 10 years, or do you simply plan to ignore those?

The claims of 5 years are, by all evidence, the minimum. Not the average, which is many times that. Care to counter that?

I take exception to unsubstantiated claims. IN SHORT: It makes no difference what Mr Archer thinks - It’s what Mr Archer can scientifically prove.

Did you even read the articles and evaluate his point, or just the headlines? You appear to have done little else but state your opinions, not scientifically prove them, so I can’t well understand what you have against Archer.

 

[kimmielittle]

On the contrary, I was countin on you not holding those beliefs. That was the point. You apply the logic to smoking and lung cancer that you won’t apply to global warming (assuming that you support the former theory and reject the latter).

Those have causation - correlation observational evidence backing the claims.

The AGW hypothesis says CO2 drives temperatures upwards - Yet, we have evidence Temperatures rise before CO2 by about 800 years.

The AGW hypothesis says we should be always warming as CO2 rises - Yet, we know this doesn’t happen.

led you and so many others to view their findings as discredited.

Assumption poorly made.

I’ve debated AGW before the scandals broke. Observational evidence didn’t match Modeled projections

No matter though, countless other scientific institutions acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic global warming. See the wikipedia article for a nice list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

For every scientist you claim - I can produce many leaving the AGW ship.
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf

Appeals to authority don’t work - the science needs to prove itself.

Once again, no it doesn’t. Where to begin. Temperature readings around the globe have supported consistent waming for decades;

Yes! Would you expect less coming out of The Little Ice Age?

(Svante Arrhelius is credited with first ‘discovering’ it early in the century; but French mathematician Joseph Fourier proposed demonstrated a proto- greenhouse effect to be true almost 2 centuries ago.). Satelite evidence also confirm this warming. Attempts to refute the warming trend often resort to obsolete satellite readings from defunct technology from the 80s or 90s. Recent satellite evidence, however, confirms this. Therre was also the myth about the urban heat islansd, which most scientists knew about and took into account in their data as far back as several decades ago. The warming trend is indisputable.

Just Who do you think is disputing the fact that as we come out of The Little Ice Age we will trend warmer?

That the emission of greenhouse gases contributes significantly to this follows from the laws of chemistry. Do you have an alternative theory to the greenhouse effect?

Processed chesseseseses…The AGW hypothesis depends on sensitivities. Sensitivities based on models - fed by those who promote the hypothesis. Sensitivities that have always been in question. AND recent work supports questioning.

Hansen’s 1988 model (I’m sure you very much dislike Hansen, but evidence is evidence) for example successfully predicted substantial warming over the ensuant 12 years. Not to mention Arrhelius’s prediction in 1896.

Hansen’s model is in this thread and according to it - we have zero emissions …see this thread. How did Mr Hansens projections stand up to observational evidence.

If one cherry picks time frames so that observed slopes are as steeply alarmist as one’s predicted slopes. Hansen et al (1988) was published following a major El Nino. He was almost guaranteed a decade of being right.

? IPCC leads? What are those?

Lead Authors

You’re just confirming the pattern I observed that this whole case seems to rest on the IPCC supposedly being crooked. There are surveys galore out there on the scientific consensus on global warming. Why do you persistently believe that because someone says the IPCC was wrong about something, that the opposite claim must necessarily be true?

The science since 2007 has challenged the AGW hypothesis.

What hypocritical logical fallacies? I said that oil companies have a vested interest in opposing anthropogenic global warming theory at all costs.

Then if at ALL COSTS they wouldn’t be funding the Climate Research Unit CRU ]…now would they? Do you see your logic flaw?

I brought this up not because I thought it relevant to the atgument (I like to avoid ad hominems) but to counter you ad hominem attacks on all the scientists who support the AGW theory. Why not look at the planck in your eye? If you reject the bulk of scientific consensus on this matter, why not reject their findings on other matters?

Well for “I like to avoid ad hominems”…

Science - Normal Science - isn’t about consensus. ANYONE who talks consensus in the same sentence trying to make a scientific point - is practicing Post-Normal Science.

YES! There are a bunch of papers out there claiming AGW. And 30 years later we still are looking for empirical observational evidence to support them.