Trump on dire warnings in climate report: ‘I don’t believe it’

[Elderberry]

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
Sherwood B. Idso*
U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, 4331 E. Broadway, Phoenix, Arizona 85040, USA
*E-mail: sidso@uswcl.ars.ag.gov

https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf

Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth's near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration could raise the planet's mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.

[Dexter]

I agree. But in my profession, in almost every profession, people are paid and expected to get the details right. At least if they want to be taken seriously.

You really should take them seriously still. That became a scare because the entire world didn't have access to better information at the time. These are the most qualified people in the world and they're giving you their expert opinions on the meaning of all of the different mountains of data they have examined.

[240B]

Yes.

Do you know what the largest creator of greenhouse gasses is?  Hint: It's not man.

Water vapor is responsible for producing the largest greenhouse-gas effect, because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any other gas and, by volume, overwhelms all other greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide only makes up 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, constituting 3.6 percent of the greenhouse-gas effect.

Another interesting fact is we have no accurate way of knowing how much rain falls over the entire planet every year and how much of that rain turns into water vapor after the un hits it creating even more greenhouse gas.

One eruption from a volcano does more damage than man could allegedly do in 50 years.

Then there's this from Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/how-much-weather-is-being-caused-by-climate-change-maybe-1-part-in-1000/


Scientists and Socialist governments want you to believe man is the leading cause of the destruction of the planet because we...people...can be taxed.  Water vapor cow farts and volcanic eruptions can't.

Greenhouse gases have some limited effect, but the primary driver in millions of years of changes in the climate is the ebb and flow nature of the Sun. Even if the Liberals got everything they have ever dreamed of in terms of climate change, the climate would still change as it always has for hundreds of millions of years. Nobody can control the Sun, and that is what a changing climate is all about.

The scariest thing in the world to me is to have a bunch of Liberals fiddling around with the Earth's weather, without having the slightest clue what the ramifications their actions will be in the long run. Their fanatic idiocy could actually wind up making the weather much, much, worse. Who knows? Nobody can predict the weather.

There are simply way too many unknowable factors to truly, absolutely know what the weather is going to do from one decade to the next. If humans start screwing around with it, there is no telling what may happen.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Neither do a ton of scientists.

Scientists rip new federal climate report as ‘tripe’ – ’embarrassing’ – ‘systematically flawed’

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,341707.0.html

[Dexter]

I know y'all hate this argument, but when it comes to actual climate scientists an incredible majority think AGW is a real threat that we need to be aware of.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I know y'all hate this argument, but when it comes to actual climate scientists an incredible majority think AGW is a real threat that we need to be aware of.

Good job security for those guys if they can convince people to accept the premise.

[Dexter]

Good job security for those guys if they can convince people to accept the premise.

Climate scientists do not need job security. Their jobs are incredibly important. They're not lying to us about what they believe. That doesn't mean what they believe is 100% accurate, but they are much more qualified to have an opinion.

[Elderberry]

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence



 31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence".

31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics?

While polls of scientists actively working in the filed of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.

This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Climate scientists do not need job security. Their jobs are incredibly important. They're not lying to us about what they believe. That doesn't mean what they believe is 100% accurate, but they are much more qualified to have an opinion.

How do you happen to know they are not lying?

As far as 'more qualified to have an opinion', do you believe lawyers should be the authority on our laws similarly?

How about a chef on the taste of food?

[Dexter]

do you believe lawyers should be the authority on our laws similarly?

Why do we hire lawyers?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Why do we hire lawyers?

Because they spend more time than the rest of us in the law.  That does not make them superior in any manner to the rest of us.

You cannot answer the question I posed, can you?

How do you know they are not lying?

[Dexter]

How do you know they are not lying?

We are already screwed if governments have corrupted every scientific institution on Earth to the extent that we cannot take scientists seriously. Give up; go home.

[austingirl]

I wonder how the cabal of climate fearmongers explain the changes in temperature on other planets? The cosmos, and that includes earth, has warmed and cooled in cycles well before man appeared.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We are already screwed if governments have corrupted every scientific institution on Earth to the extent that we cannot take scientists seriously. Give up; go home.

Then they are not true scientists, but propagandists.

We must depend upon the scientific community to police itself.

[Dexter]

We must depend upon the scientific community to police itself.

If climate science was a sham hoards of climate scientists would be getting rich making papers about it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If climate science was a sham hoards of climate scientists would be getting rich making papers about it.

Like Al Gore is?

[Dexter]

Like Al Gore is?

Al Gore is not a climate scientist.

[Dexter]

How do you know your lawyer isn't secretly conspiring with the judge to get you convicted for something you didn't do?

[mountaineer]

Al Gore is not a climate scientist.

He thinks he is. Instead, being completely ignorant, he should have kept his mouth shut about the topic.

[Emjay]

He understands enough to know that the same gaggle of scientists that predicted the next Ice Age in the 70's...based on the same info they are using now to predict riding oceans...and using junk science to make their claims and will move their goalpost as often and as far as they need to keep their hoax alive.

Amen, @txradioguy   All these wild theories have been proven to be hoaxes or horrible science. Why do people keep falling for them?

[Emjay]

I hope ignoring the most qualified people on Earth screaming about things in their area of expertise will turn out well for us. It would really suck if it's not actually a giant conspiracy among the world's leading scientists.

These 'scientists' are as informed and unbiased as Supreme Court justices.

You can go back to your storm cellar now.

[txradioguy]

If climate science was a sham hoards of climate scientists would be getting rich making papers about it.

They do make a ton of money off of their junk science theories.

And most of them have tenure...which means in education circles they can’t get fired.

So yes they do have job security.

[Dexter]

They do make a ton of money off of their junk science theories.

And most of them have tenure...which means in education circles they can’t get fired.

So yes they do have job security.

I meant papers debunking AGW.

[Emjay]

I meant papers debunking AGW.

@Dexter   Of course you have a right to your opinion, but you have now succeeded in making me question every post you make.

[edpc]

I hope ignoring the most qualified people on Earth screaming about things in their area of expertise will turn out well for us. It would really suck if it's not actually a giant conspiracy among the world's leading scientists.

There are always things we think we know, but have to be thrown out or altered, later.  Climate change IS real.  It’s been a fact, since the Earth had an atmosphere.  There have been large changes and multiple extinctions, long before people existed, much less had any ideas about what fossil fuels could do.  The question isn’t if the climate will change, but if we can do anything about it.  On the latter question, I sincerely doubt they really know or agree.