Climate Change Claims Nonsense?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Some prominent scientists think some climate claims are nonsense and irrational.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/

[cooltigger21 0]

The solutions put forth are costing billions of dollars and costing jobs for a miniscule almost imperceptible benefit

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Even homer is dumbfounded.

[AFTiger 282]

Even homer is dumbfounded.

Homer is never dumbfounded. He will simply dismiss the argument.

[AUDub 11,131]

Lindzen, Happer and Moore?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Even homer is dumbfounded.

Homer is never dumbfounded. He will simply dismiss the argument.

Is dumbfounded the same as founded dumb?

[AURaptor 1,121]

What has many scientists concerned is the attitudes to those who support the AGW dogma, to such an extent, they're actually in favor of silencing, intimidating, and even jailing , those who don't get on board.

That authoritative mindset runs counter to what science is about in the first place.

[Auburn4life 24]

What has many scientists concerned is the attitudes to those who support the AGW dogma, to such an extent, they're actually in favor of silencing, intimidating, and even jailing , those who don't get on board.

That authoritative mindset runs counter to what science is about in the first place.

This is my main problem with the climate change.

Let all scientist do their work and find the answer. But a Theory is not FACT.

[homersapien 11,353]

What has many scientists concerned is the attitudes to those who support the AGW dogma, to such an extent, they're actually in favor of silencing, intimidating, and even jailing , those who don't get on board.

That authoritative mindset runs counter to what science is about in the first place.

This is my main problem with the climate change.

Let all scientist do their work and find the answer. But a Theory is not FACT.

Wrong. Theory (with a capital T) is as close to fact as humans are able to get.

I see you are new here. Let's start with the basics:

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

[homersapien 11,353]

Climate Depot? You folks seem to have very short attention spans.

[AURaptor 1,121]

What has many scientists concerned is the attitudes to those who support the AGW dogma, to such an extent, they're actually in favor of silencing, intimidating, and even jailing , those who don't get on board.

That authoritative mindset runs counter to what science is about in the first place.

This is my main problem with the climate change.

Let all scientist do their work and find the answer. But a Theory is not FACT.

Wrong. Theory (with a capital T) is as close to fact as humans are able to get.

I see you are new here. Let's start with the basics:

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Homer, you're sciencing wrong.

Theories aren't facts. They aren't laws Theories can be validated of rejected & even amended .

Read your own link.

[AUDub 11,131]

What has many scientists concerned is the attitudes to those who support the AGW dogma, to such an extent, they're actually in favor of silencing, intimidating, and even jailing , those who don't get on board.

That authoritative mindset runs counter to what science is about in the first place.

This is my main problem with the climate change.

Let all scientist do their work and find the answer. But a Theory is not FACT.

Wrong. Theory (with a capital T) is as close to fact as humans are able to get.

I see you are new here. Let's start with the basics:

http://www.livescien...-of-theory.html

Homer, you're sciencing wrong.

Theories aren't facts. They aren't laws Theories can be validated of rejected & even amended .

Read your own link.

The best explanations for how the universe works are "merely" Theories.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Gravity is a fact. If you think its a theory, jump off a bridge and test it.

[homersapien 11,353]

What has many scientists concerned is the attitudes to those who support the AGW dogma, to such an extent, they're actually in favor of silencing, intimidating, and even jailing , those who don't get on board.

That authoritative mindset runs counter to what science is about in the first place.

This is my main problem with the climate change.

Let all scientist do their work and find the answer. But a Theory is not FACT.

Wrong. Theory (with a capital T) is as close to fact as humans are able to get.

I see you are new here. Let's start with the basics:

http://www.livescien...-of-theory.html

Homer, you're sciencing wrong.

Theories aren't facts. They aren't laws Theories can be validated of rejected & even amended .

Read your own link.

Well, I agree that link wasn't wasn't the best explanation of my point. Try this:

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

^[9]

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

^[2]

Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

But to Auburn4life's point, AGW is a theory (small t), even if it's based on facts.

[homersapien 11,353]

Gravity is a fact. If you think its a theory, jump off a bridge and test it.

Never heard of the "Theory of gravity"? But thanks for making my point.

[AURaptor 1,121]

The what ?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Gravity is a fact. If you think its a theory, jump off a bridge and test it.

Never heard of the "Theory of gravity"? But thanks for making my point.

Ii was originally called the Theory of Gravity but has been called the Law of Gravity for a long, long time. Always glad to get you up to speed.

Meanwhile back to the OP. It clearly shows that many respected scientists don't agree with your usual nonsense.

[homersapien 11,353]

Gravity is a fact. If you think its a theory, jump off a bridge and test it.

Never heard of the "Theory of gravity"? But thanks for making my point.

Ii was originally called the Theory of Gravity but has been called the Law of Gravity for a long, long time. Always glad to get you up to speed.

Not exactly. The law of gravity explains what happens, it doesn't explain why. Theories are still required for that.

[AURaptor 1,121]

homer, please. Quit while you're behind.

" Why do fools fall in love " isn't a theory. It's a song.

[homersapien 11,353]

Gravity is a fact. If you think its a theory, jump off a bridge and test it.

Never heard of the "Theory of gravity"? But thanks for making my point.

Meanwhile back to the OP. It clearly shows that many respected scientists don't agree with your usual nonsense.

It's not MY "nonsense". I have done no research in the field. It's THEIR "nonsense":

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Gravity is a fact. If you think its a theory, jump off a bridge and test it.

Never heard of the "Theory of gravity"? But thanks for making my point.

Ii was originally called the Theory of Gravity but has been called the Law of Gravity for a long, long time. Always glad to get you up to speed.

Not exactly. The law of gravity explains what happens, it doesn't explain why. Theories are still required for that.

Glad you see the light that what I originally said was correct.....gravity IS a FACT. "Why" is something for people with too much time on their hand to worry about.

[homersapien 11,353]

Gravity is a fact. If you think its a theory, jump off a bridge and test it.

Never heard of the "Theory of gravity"? But thanks for making my point.

Ii was originally called the Theory of Gravity but has been called the Law of Gravity for a long, long time. Always glad to get you up to speed.

Not exactly. The law of gravity explains what happens, it doesn't explain why. Theories are still required for that.

Glad you see the light that what I originally said was correct.....gravity IS a FACT. "Why" is something for people with too much time on their hand to worry about.

The increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a FACT too. I guess in your mind, what the effects of that are for other people to worry about. For now.

[AFTiger 282]

AP 'Fact Check' Uses Scientists Trashing Ted Cruz as Dumber Than a Kindergartner on Climate

By Tim Graham |

When AP reporter/climate activist Seth Borenstein assembles a “fact check” on global warming, you be sure the “deniers” are going to take some licks. The headline was “Most GOP candidates flunk climate science.” Borenstein assembled a panel of (non-political?) scientists who just happened to find the Democrats were much more “factual.”

At the request of The Associated Press, eight climate and biological scientists graded for scientific accuracy what a dozen top candidates said in debates, interviews and tweets, using a 0 to 100 scale.

To try to eliminate possible bias, the candidates' comments were stripped of names and given randomly generated numbers, so the professors would not know who made each statement they were grading.

So instead of assigning the "fact check" to allegedly objective journalists, they turned to climate scientists, who might seem objective but are often invested in slamming those "deniers" in the conservative fold.

Hillary Rodham Clinton had the highest average score at 94, and “Below Clinton's 94 were O'Malley with 91; Sanders, 87; Bush, 64; Christie, 54; Ohio Gov. John Kasich, 47; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, 38; Fiorina, 28; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, 21; businessman Donald Trump, 15; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, 13; and Cruz with 6.”

Borenstein’s panel included controversial scientist Michael Mann, the subject of a big political squabble with former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mann hardly sounded like he was eliminating bias in his summations.

"This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner," Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University meteorology professor, wrote of Cruz's statements. "That sort of ignorance would be dangerous in a doorman, let alone a president."

Who thinks this sounds like a disinterested scientist with no investment in a political outcome? Science magazine called Mann “The political scientist” and noted “he was featured in millions of dollars’ worth of television ads attacking McAuliffe’s opponent, Ken Cuccinelli ®, the Virginia attorney general who launched a controversial investigation into research that Mann conducted when he worked at the University of Virginia (UVA).” He introduced Bill Clinton at campaign events, and after McAuliffe won, he tweeted he was happy Cuccinelli lost, given his “dangerous brand of politics & his contempt for science & rational thought”.

Some of these “scientific” statements included Sen. Marco Rubio saying regulating American emissions won’t affect climate change because the Chinese will continue to pollute.

The U.S. spews about 17 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, "so big cuts here would still make a big difference globally," said geochemist Louisa Bradtmiller at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. Rubio's inference that China is not doing much about global warming "is out of date. The Chinese are implementing a cap-and-trade system in their country to reduce emissions," said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.

Are the Chinese really going to curb emissions? Predicting the future is at least in part a political judgment, not “science.”

- See more at: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2015/11/23/ap-fact-check-uses-scientists-trashing-ted-cruz-dumber-kindergartner#sthash.9DSdUuSm.dpuf

[AURaptor 1,121]

I suppose the late Michael Crichton ( Harvard BS & Harvard MD ) was an idiot as well, when it came to climate change.

He was a denier, btw.

[Auburn4life 24]

Look at all these facts.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/

http://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/

Again, I am not debating here whether MAN made climate change has a significant impact on earth, just stating why I have a problem with these people that support it want to silence/jail/etc... those who oppose them.