Hey look, it's a climate change thread!

[hollodero]

(01-21-2017, 07:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, no, it's not an accident or luck that I pointed that out.  My responses are "few and substantial" because that's the science.  I said specifically the case begins and ends with positive feedback.  That science is shaky, and empirical evidence would seem to invalidate theory.  That's why their models suck so bad, in a nutshell, because they're making bad assumptions to fit their conclusions.

Very simply, given the magnitude of AGT we are trying to measure...in relation to the quality and precision of the data....an absolute ***** joke.  We have probably 20-30 years of good data, which means practically speaking we are 100+ years away from anything remotely a "good" scientific conclusion (and for you dumbasses that goes both ways).

CO2 warming capacity is precise and can be tested.  But they have no idea how the Earth reacts to offset imbalances and counter "negative" effects (more CO2 being bad is a different thread).  They just assume more CO2 is very bad.  And that's like reason #1 to be skeptical of claims.  Basically they assume - with absolutely no justification - that man is a butterfly and not a gnat.  AND it sounds compelling, intuitive even, to demand evidence that man ISN'T a butterfly....but that's not how science works,  And the "rational" unscientific assumption is that man is the gnat and it needs to be proven otherwise.  And that's basically where this debate is at - a bunch of garbage thrown against the wall to bias you to demand proof man is not the butterfly.

And yada yada yada...the more you read, and start looking into sun spots, solar, volanic activity, cloud feedback, etc....the more you'll realize they just don't know nearly enough to give you a forecast you can have confidence in.

I said "few substantial", not "few and substantial". You post a lot, but there usually is a loooot of self-confidence, but no substance behind it. Calling the science garbage and us dumbasses isn't substantial, your strange butterfly analogy means absolutely nothing, the claim we only have 20 years of good data is nonsense, your whole post contains not much to even respond to.
I got into the whole climate sensitivity thing, I take whatever specific points you offer for a debate, as few as they are. We do see the things I got into in lengthy posts, sour oceans, melting glaciers, a warmer planet - all this is true, right? You can either debunk warming as a whole - or give me some alternative explanation for the warming. Sun spots or volcanoes as cause for the current warming are refuted 10.000 times, though. That much so I don't think it's sensible to still mention those.

Forecast with confidence, well. When I see a distinct rise in CO2 levels and a warming of 0.8°C in global average temperature - and I also do know that the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 and other substances in the atmosphere is real (it would be 33°C colder on earth if it weren't) - I'd say there's something to the whole theory that additional CO2 causes the additional warming. Almost every person more educated than me agrees, so there's that as well. How big is my confidence? Probably not 100%, but close. Doubt is always a part of predictions, there's hardly any prediction that is 100% doubt-free. See the CKwi88' post on page one. I see a very slight chance that you're right and there's nothing behind it after all. But that's just an unlikely scenario, and by applying that view as a reason to do nothing about CC isn't smart. Even if science were erroneous in some respects.

- I made this point a thousand times, but the one who has NO doubt AT ALL is YOU. You are completely, 100% certain man-made CC is un-real, misguided, stupid idiotic stuff only believed by inferior people. If you demand doubt from me, I demand doubt from you, or else you're just insincere towards your own "we can't know for it's way too complex" - stance.

Two more things, one, the consensus is not "we're heading towards catastrophic warming", it's "human causes climate change". Whenever you attack alleged "doomsday predictions", you do not attack the science behind CC, just some specifics (I admit that some outlets are maybe too pessimistic to get more attention, that I can imagine and if so, I condemn it). 
Second, the money aspect, CC is not only resarched in the US. I do not know about your system, but in my country and others a lot of research in general is publicly funded, universities, certain facilities, .... Foundational research in all kinds of scientific fields usually is. Hence, public funding does in no way mean political influencing, and that connection is populisic nonsense. Our chancellor does not call the universities to tell them "hey, that bone you found you want to date now, make sure it's at least 6.000 years old or you don't get paid!" - or whatever else is researched at different universities, be it CC, cat hairs or mental disorders or [50.000 more examples]. If any, my country has no interest in CC being a real thing, none whatsoever.
Political influence for what reason? Who pays for the CC narrative?