It's better than no picture. You seem to be indulging in arrant Platonism. There is nothing crazy about my conclusions, and the data supporting them are robust and quite plentiful. Your Platonism is not relevant to the science.
"Realist" would be a good word for denying the CO2-centered climate narrative that is claimed to justify absurd, anti-scientific, anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering.
I agree with you the first point you made it is important and it is a picture, but it's nothing to build a conclusion on. When you build a conclusion on what the painting of the Mona Lisa is based on what you see through a pinhole that's religion it's not science and it's not intelligent. that's what all religious people say about their religion WAGing isn't science. Just because you would say words like data and science doesn't mean you have any legitimacy to anything you say.
Some basic science may help. Atmosphere and Greenhouse Gas Primer By W. A. van Wijngaarden, Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada and W. Happer, Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA When these complications are taken into account, model calculations of the thermal radiation spectrum at the top of the atmosphere can hardly be distinguished from those observed from satellites. . . .
No it isn't. It seems you have limited experience speaking with religious people about their religions. What is WAGing? But if you don't have data and a credible, impartial scientific methodology, it's hard to achieve scientific legitimacy.
LOL, not familiar with science to know the lingo? WAG= Wild Ass Guess. Yeah which is why this climate crap is a religion. You are looking at the universe through a keyhole.
It's a long time since I heard that expression. What do you claim I have said that consists of WAGing? I'd say the CO2 narrative is more of a hoax than a religion, but there is certainly a legitimate science of climate. We just don't see much of it these days. Platonism.
Go back and review. I would say it is on par with scientology. I don't think it is philosophical that you only have a tiny scrap of data.
All I see is you ranting. No specific objection to a specific statement of mine. Scientology is nonsense made up by one person. The CO2 narrative is more like neoclassical economics: a collective perversion of science to serve certain interests. There are reams of data. The problem is figuring out what it all means.
What consensus? New Study: 68% Of Scientific Papers Can Be Said To Reject The AGW Hypothesis… By Kenneth Richard on 30. November 2023 …when using the same assumption-based methodology to arrive at the conclusion only 0.5% of scientific papers reject AGW. In a new study, six scientists (Dentelski et al., 2023) effectively eviscerate a methodologically flawed 2021 study (Lynas et al.) that claims 99.53% of 3,000 scientific papers examined (by subjectively classifying papers based only on what is written in the abstracts) support the anthropogenic global warming, or AGW, position. Image Source: Dentelski et al., 2023 The Lynas et al. authors begin with the assumption that a consensus on the human attribution for global warming not only exists, it is ensconced as the unquestioned, prevailing viewpoint in the scientific literature. So their intent was to effectively quantify the strength of this assumed widespread agreement by devising a rating system that only assesses the explicit rejection of AGW in the paper’s abstract as not supporting the presumed “consensus.” Of the 3,000 papers analyzed in Lynas et al., 282 were deemed not sufficiently “climate-related.” Another 2,104 papers were placed in Category 4, which meant either the paper’s authors took “no position” or the position on AGW was deemed “uncertain”…in the abstract. So, exploiting the “if you are not against, you are for” classification bias, Lynas and colleagues decided that the authors of these 2,104 scientific papers in Category 4 do indeed agree with AGW, as what is written in the abstract does not explicitly state they do not agree. Interestingly, if this classification bias had not been utilized and the thousands of Category 4 (“no position” or “uncertain”) papers were not counted as supporting AGW, only 892 of the 2,718 (climate-related) papers, or 32%, could be said to have affirmatively stated they support AGW. So, simply by assuming one cannot divine the AGW opinions of authors of scientific papers by reading abstracts, it could just as facilely be said that 68% (1,826 of 2,71 of climate-related papers reject AGW. Dentelski and colleagues also point out that by their own analysis, 54% of the papers they examined that were classified by Lynas et al. as only “implying” support (Category 3) for AGW or Category 4 (“no position” or “uncertain”) actually described a lack of support for AGW in the body of the paper itself. But since this expressed non-endorsement of AGW was not presented in the abstract, these papers were wrongly classified as supporting AGW anyway. To fully grasp the subjective nature of the methodology employed by Lynas and colleagues, Dentelski et al. uncover the internals of the study indicating 58% of the time two independent examiners did not agree on numerical classification scale (from 1 to 7) for a paper. If two people agree just 42% of the time when classifying papers, it cannot be said that the rating system is sufficiently objective. The Lynas et al. paper appears to be little more than an exercise in propaganda.
religion has nothing to do with The first thing I tell a consensus denier is that much of science is funded by the government for the purpose of advising policy makers/lawmakers on climate science. A lawmaker MUST go by consensus. True, science isn't about consensus, but that misses the point. What, you want them to go by minority view? From a policy perspective, that would not make sense. A policy makers goes by the odds of who is right, and though the majority could be wrong, the odds are in their favor. AGW does refer, in part, to the increasing of average temperature Again, I think you are missing the point. Climate refers to the long-term patterns and averages of weather in a particular area. It's not merely a subjective characterization; it's a scientifically measurable aspect of our planet's environmental system. Climate encompasses a range of weather variables, including temperature, humidity, wind patterns, precipitation, and more, over extended periods – typically decades or longer. Climate is indeed measurable. Scientists use a variety of methods and instruments to collect data on various aspects of the climate, such as temperature records, ice core samples, tree rings, and satellite observations. This data is then analyzed to understand long-term trends and patterns. While it's true that climate itself is not a 'unit of measurement' like meters or kilograms, the elements that make up the climate (such as temperature, precipitation, and wind speed) are measurable and are often expressed in specific units. For example, global average temperature is a key metric used in studying climate change. The point is you are nitpicking the use of the term 'climate'. The concept of AGW is based on the measurable increase in global average temperatures and changes in climate patterns directly linked to human activities, especially the emission of greenhouse gases. These changes are not subjective but are based on extensive scientific research and empirical data. Strawman. No one is suggesting burning fossils for fuel by use of the term. The term 'fossil fuels' refer to natural fuels formed from the remains of living organisms that have been buried and subjected to geological processes over millions of years. These fuels are composed primarily of carbon and hydrogen and include coal, oil, and natural gas. this process could start today but it still does take form tens of millions all the way to hundreds of millions. What religion might that be?
Here's a chart showing the data collated by geological scientists. What it shows is the earths temperature, co2 levels and where ice ages are in relation to those over the geological eras - What can we all surmise from the scientist's findings? I have a geology background, albeit in the 80's, so I find the findings interesting. But why do climate scientists disagree with the geological scientists? If you deny this chart, are you a denier?
That is false. Most of us have heard the story of President Abraham Lincoln and his cabinet as they pondered signing one of our country’s most historic documents… When he brought in the Emancipation Proclamation, President Abraham Lincoln polled his Cabinet. The Secretary of State stood and uttered his “Nay” unmistakably. The Secretary of the Interior followed suit. The Treasury Secretary and so forth: all against. Lincoln heard them each in turn. Then Lincoln raised his hand and said… “The Ayes have it.” The NAY's Have It: Consensus Driven Leadership
Interesting that you particularly should mention that. You do realize (okay, maybe you don't, but then again, few do) that lawmakers have never created a "policy" on "climate change"? They're supposed to in our Constitutional system, but so far they've never done that. Does anybody ever wonder why they haven't? The simple reason is that if they followed proper Constitutional lawmaking protocol, they'd have to open themselves up to open, robust debate. And then they'd need to get agreement from 218 Representatives in the House and 60 Senators to pass a bill that would then have to be signed into law by the sitting President at that time. It wouldn't matter if it were a new law or merely an amendment of an existing law like the Clean Air Act but there would have to be lawmaking. And perhaps more importantly, there would be a permanent record of each Congressional vote that could then be used to defeat them come the next election. The simple truth of the matter is, starting in about the mid-60s, Congress realized that actually doing their jobs is a dangerous threat to a lucrative 50+ year career. Better to just keep voting for ever increasing government spending. Nobody tends to get really actively upset at anybody if the obscure freebie handouts keep coming. The hard truth is that lawmakers and policymakers haven't weighed in on the issue formally yet. And they would prefer not to. So how did we actually get here with all of the absurdities of mandating the elimination of internal combustion engines by 2035, making the power grid much less reliable by mandating it run on butterfly farts, wind, and sunshine, and on and on and on? The "global warming" cabal has never had any reason to believe that they can actually convince anywhere near a majority of people of "climate change" and that's been obvious to most rational folks since at least the early 70's. So what do they do? Pretty much what all progressives do when their narcissistic visions of power fail- they lie, cheat, and change definitions. They lie by hyping normal bad weather as something that will end the world in a dozen years if we don't stop living. They change definitions by making normal atmospheric trace gases that are just part of what happens when living and breathing into "pollutants" that must be regulated. But where they really shine is in cheating. See, if the Constitution won't allow "climate change" to be controlled the way they think it should, work around the Constitution. That'll do it. So 40 years ago in 1984's Chevron v. NRDC (stands for National Resources Defense Council, an environmental NGO, naturally), the liberal Supreme Court at the time decided that since Congress had given up writing proper agency authorizations like they are Constitutionally required to, the Court could accept agency interpretations of what Congress really meant as law. This takes control of law making from the most purposefully bipartisan of the 3 branches of government, Congress, and transfers it to the most hyper partisan branch, the Executive (the Supreme Court, the third branch, is intended as the most non-partisan branch). This has proven to be disastrous in the intervening years culminating in 2007's Massachusetts v. EPA when, over EPA objections (at least one thing they can be proud of in all this) the State of Massachusetts sued to force EPA to either declare CO2 a pollutant or tell the court why they couldn't (saying that the Clean Air Act didn't include the gas was not allowed as an answer since, technically, the CAA doesn't specifically say which gases are pollutants and which aren't). Faced with that absurd question, EPA gave themselves the ability to directly regulate CO2 cramming a non-pollutant into processes designed for pollutants. Interestingly, the ability to regulate CO2 already existed in CAFE standards that were properly constructed from NHTSA in the Department of Transportation (MPG is an exact inverse of grams per mile if you do the units conversions) but the zealots needed a more draconian regulatory structure that they could control more. And here we sit. Arguing over the small details of climate science that is not well understood and is blatantly wrong while the free world talks itself into oblivion because a bunch of useless elites hypocritically thinks they're better and smarter than everyone else. And that's all because progressives boldly lied and cheated to get their way. As far as I'm concerned, even though I fully understand the physics that makes "climate change" impossible, the politics of it nails down the fact that "climate change" is a bald faced fraud.
What are you talking about? The main climate target of the Biden administration is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the United States to net zero by 2050.
I'm talking about how the Biden targets are illegitimate and unconstitutional. And the reason they're looking to be overturned in June.
“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book Hundred Authors Against Einstein]” ― Albert Einstein
Religion is the basis of it. The Church of Global Warming is a logic, math, and science (specifically physics) denying religion. A religion is, simply put, an initial argument of faith (IOW a circular argument) with other arguments stemming from it. The Church of Global Warming makes the initial argument of faith that Earth is warming (increasing in temperature). The first thing I tell a physics denier is that it is not possible for Earth to spontaneously increase in temperature without the presence of any additional thermal energy. Assuming constant output from the sun, where is this "additional thermal energy" coming from? Science isn't politics. Yes, if the minority view is the correct view. Science is not politics. Yes, that's the initial argument of faith for the Church of Global Warming religion. There is no valid data re: this claim, however. For instance, do you believe that one thermometer within Vermont is sufficient to measure the temperature of anywhere within the entire State of Vermont? Climate is ENTIRELY a subjective characterization of local conditions, as I have explained. What unit of measurement do you use to measure climate with? None of that is measuring climate in any way. Bingo. So you agree with me. Climate is simply a subjective characterization of local conditions. Those are elements of WEATHER, not of climate. There is no accurate data available for "global average temperature". I'll ask my question again here: Is one thermometer within Vermont sufficient to measure the temperature of anywhere within the State of Vermont? Nah. You just want to deny the definition of climate. Wow, straight out of ChatGPT...... There is no accurate "global average temperature" data in existence. There is no such thing as a "climate pattern" (weather is random). There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". You are being lied to by so called "experts". The term "fossil fuel" is completely stupid and totally inappropriate for the reason I described. A better term would be 'carbon-based fuel' or 'hydrocarbon'... or my preferred term: 'feasible fuel'. It's already happening. Random numbers. Meaningless. The Church of Global Warming. IOW, the belief that Earth is spontaneously increasing in temperature without the presence of any additional thermal energy, in violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Which is absurd and impossible, and would not have any measurable effect on climate even if it were achieved.
