Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
So humans have contributed roughly 4% of the total CO2 contribution to the atmosphere......
|
No, that's the current amount that humans contribute yearly compared to the total CO2 budget, which is different than what you said, not "have contributed" which to me means "have contributed in total in the past".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
How much of the total atmosphere is CO2? Isn't it something like 0.04%? This is so negligible.
|
Something is a small percentage so it obviously can't have any impact! 0.04% is negligible, I mean just look at the number, it's so small, it MUST be negligible! What an ignorant position, but hey saying it supports your point so who cares right?
H2S at smaller concentrations is extremely dangerous, while concentrations of nitrogen much higher have no impact, so obviously your statement that the amount of 0.04% is negligible is false and requires a more detailed examination of the actual things involved than a wave of the hand dismissal.
Without that 0.04% of CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases, but CO2 is the primary driver), the Earth would be frozen solid, pole to pole.
Totally negligible!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
The assumption that plants use the same amount of CO2 regardless of concentration levels is erroneous.
|
The assumption that I was making that assumption is erroneous.
The assumption that that changes the fact that CO2 levels have risen or that the planet is warming is erroneous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
I wish this climate research could expand outside of the narrow view of a few Anglo-American institutions, namely the U of East Anglia and the IPCC.
|
Of the 31 members of the IPCC's governing structure, there's one from the US, one from Canada, one from the UK, one from Australia, and one from NZ, that's hardly a narrow group of "Anglo-Americans".
The IPCC has over 190 member countries, most of which I would assume aren't the US, Canada, or the UK.
And ignoring all that, I wasn't aware the tenants of science changed with skin colour or nationality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
Let's see what some credible dissenters have to say....
|
Sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist
|
Dr. Itoh has published nothing in the area of climate change in scientific journals. To classify him as an IPCC Japanese scientist is false because the IPCC doesn't employ scientists.
As to what he contributed to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, all I can find is that he was a reviewer; he contributed an opinion on someone else's work.
He also wrote a book (rather than publishing scientific work I guess), and helped create a list of climate change dissenters which was comprised of paid shills, dead people, and non-climate scientists.
Looks like you're picking the opinions you like based on what you want to hear, rather than any scheme with merit (which you've demonstrated repeatedly in the past).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
|
Notice the pattern here, dissenting quote along with some kind of credential intended to lend some kind of credibility, chosen for no reason other than it supports a desired conclusion.
He's a geologist, a great one I'm sure, but that's not climatology. I watched a bit of video from the conference this statement was made at, and factually incorrect statements were put forward as true and went unchallenged.
Conferences are good for lots of things, but not for doing actual science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
|
Do you even read your quotes? Goldenberg is being critical of the media, not about the science, so your quote doesn't support your position.
Goldenberg I think is a skeptic, and his work in Hurricanes is certainly relevant to the effects of changes, but Hurricanes don't determine if the planet is warming or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
|
Another quote from a list of well circulated quotes that deniers think mean something other than they actually mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
|
So you can show what scientific work Smit has contributed to climate science?
Smit describes himself as a former scientist turned journalist and runs a weather website for winter sports enthusiasts, and calls criticism of his "reporting" censorship, a very unscientific attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
|
Lol now we're down to quotes that when I Google,
your post is the 7th hit on Google. That should say enough right there.
But as I've already said, CO2 emissions don't make "no difference", and no sane scientist would stand behind that, even among deniers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
I just wanted to post some of these quotes to show some of my fellow skeptics that it is foolish to think that there is some kind of scientific consensus.
|
So you can copy/paste from a years old well circulated list, that's nice.
Lots of denial in the quotes, but pretty short on evidence.
There is scientific consensus, the problem is you don't seem to understand what consensus means (hint, it doesn't mean unanimous agreement).
