Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by @metal-brain
No source of information other than the notoriously unreliable wikipedia I see.

wiki isn't "notoriously unreliable" but correct on the overwhelming proportion of info it gives + you lie; there are other sources of that same information other than wiki.
Just a few examples (with some containing evidence of its damage) ;

http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

Info from all these links is all consistent with or the same as that from wiki.

Originally posted by @humy
wiki isn't "notoriously unreliable" but correct on the overwhelming proportion of info it gives + you lie; there are other sources of that same information other than wiki.
Just a few examples (with some containing evidence of its damage) ;

http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

https: ...[text shortened]... acidification

Info from all these links is all consistent with or the same as that from wiki.

You are an idiot. Coral recovers from any damage in cycles that are completely normal. Wikipedia is vulnerable to overly zealous people like you that would like to interject lies on the site about GW and other highly debatable subjects. Remember when Sonhouse embarrassed himself by believing the wikipedia page on Fred Singer. It falsely claimed Singer said the Mars Moon Phobos was an alien base inside of the hollow moon.
Laughable!!!!!!

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56929

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Includes the peer reviewed source article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#2f1d7ac04c7c

Interesting study. What is it about this particular survey that convinces you? It seems to contain the same methodological flaws that you used to discard all the data from the previous surveys we have looked at. In fact, this study is more of a subjective sociological think-piece regarding the complex nature of human thought. One major conclusion: Different people have different ways of framing the same problem. It doesn't seem to address (or even ask) concrete questions about specific forcings of climate change. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If we want to be consistent and trust the methods of these researchers, we need to also trust the results of each of the two prior studies (which asked more concrete questions.) Or are we going to throw all the studies out for methodological flaws? Either way, your original premise isn't substantiated by this reference.

Another one of the major conclusions in your reference was this:

The [nature is overwhelming group] make a strong claim that climate science is fraudulent and believe that the debate is not settled and ‘good science’ will eventually overcome science fiction. Since all regulation is ineffective anyway, there is also no urgency... this group is clearly overrepresented... in the oil and gas industry. Thus, .... to downplay the impact of humankind on the environment in general is a quite ‘handy’ framing for top management of oil and gas corporations.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
" I replied you “My source is Dr. Singer” because in his article at the link you provided, at the section titled “Some examples”, paragraph “3. Eos - American Geophysical Union”, he cites the form letter he received from climate sub-editor Jose Fuentes, which in my opinion explains perfectly well the reasons why Dr. Singer’s submission was rejected."
...[text shortened]... viewed article proving my case.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

Edit: Please copy and paste that information for all of us to see. That is what you should have done in the first place, but you seem to like dragging your feet instead of explaining and posting an excerpt for detail. You are still doing that. Why no excerpt? Do you enjoy stalling?



For one, save this way of talking and your assumptions as regards one's personage for yours.

For two, why should I "explain" and "post an excerpt for detail”?
When you offered the notorious link
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/peer_review_is_not_what_its_cracked_up_to_be.html
I simply spotted and read Dr. Singer’s “article”, I did not ask you to feed me the data with a teaspoon. I asked you neither “Why no excerpt?” nor “Do you enjoy stalling?”. I just went there, read Dr. Singer’s nonsense and then I replied to your comment.
Likewise, instead of admonishing and telling me “what I should have done in the first place”, kindly please feel free to go there if you are interested, and see on your own what answer that joker received, from whom, and in what context.
That being said, I do not understand how one can ever offer a link of an article which supposedly helps one’s thesis, and still unfamiliar to its full context remain. Perhaps you ought to actually read the text of an article before you post the link required for its access;
😵

Originally posted by @metal-brain
" I replied you “My source is Dr. Singer” because in his article at the link you provided, at the section titled “Some examples”, paragraph “3. Eos - American Geophysical Union”, he cites the form letter he received from climate sub-editor Jose Fuentes, which in my opinion explains perfectly well the reasons why Dr. Singer’s submission was rejected."
...[text shortened]... viewed article proving my case.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

Edit: Here is a peer reviewed article proving my case.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317


No, this peer reviewed article does not prove your “case”. It simply does prove that the authors of “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” still enjoy a good laugh on expense account –by Forbes, IBD and WUWT, that is.

You see, the authors deal strictly with what they think is the primary problem in the global warming debate. To them, the point is that many people think that weighing the credentials, the social and prof background, the political affiliation etc. of the advocate of a particular perspective is an adequate shortcut around the necessary hard work of the evaluation of the scientific data and evidence provided by him. Therefore the authors investigate the potential implications of their findings for organizational and policy responses, and they propose the adoption of reframing the climate change as a risk to be managed, which according to them has the discursive potential to provide a bridge to integrate various frames and inject a legitimate diagnosis, established prognoses, identity scripts and motivational consensus. They argue that the financial risks could well resonate with specific adherents, the environmental risks with the ones who comply with Kyoto amongst else, the regulatory risks with all anti-regulationists, and the risks of contamination with another group of their mentioned frame. That’s all.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: Here is a peer reviewed article proving my case.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317


No, this peer reviewed article does not prove your “case”. It simply does prove that the authors of “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” still enjoy a good laugh on expense account ...[text shortened]... sts, and the risks of contamination with another group of their mentioned frame. That’s all.
😵

Obviously you're making good points, but we've been down this road before and nothing really seems to get through. If a blog article supports the world view of a climate change truther, they believe it without questioning the findings. If the research contradicts that world view, they either A) claim the data is wrong B) claim the scientists are biased or C) (last resort) claim that there's nothing we can do to stop it so why bother and the Vikings did pretty well in Greenland during the last warming period.

The financial argument should resonate, but it never makes it to the ear/eye. There first needs to be an acknowledgement and agreement on how the climate works.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Obviously you're making good points, but we've been down this road before and nothing really seems to get through. If a blog article supports the world view of a climate change truther, they believe it without questioning the findings. If the research contradicts that world view, they either A) claim the data is wrong B) claim the scientists are biased or ...[text shortened]... the ear/eye. There first needs to be an acknowledgement and agreement on how the climate works.

Sure thing; this is the case when one has an agenda😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: Please copy and paste that information for all of us to see. That is what you should have done in the first place, but you seem to like dragging your feet instead of explaining and posting an excerpt for detail. You are still doing that. Why no excerpt? Do you enjoy stalling?



For one, save this way of talking and your assumptions as regard ...[text shortened]... ht to actually read the text of an article before you post the link required for its access;
😵

In other words, you don't want to provide something to me that you have already read and could save me time and effort to find it.

If you want to make me do needless work because you have a bias against me just admit it. Never mind the fact that I cannot find it. That seems to be what you are hoping for. Heck, maybe it doesn't exist and you are just dishonest like humy and wildgrass.

Heck, maybe nobody should copy and paste anything for another's convenience. We could become a culture of inconsideration here on this forum. Needless work for everybody.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Interesting study. What is it about this particular survey that convinces you? It seems to contain the same methodological flaws that you used to discard all the data from the previous surveys we have looked at. In fact, this study is more of a subjective sociological think-piece regarding the complex nature of human thought. One major conclusion: Differe ...[text shortened]... nt in general is a quite ‘handy’ framing for top management of oil and gas corporations.[/quote]

It convinces me that anyone can find a poll that is biased either way. This demonstrates that the science is not settled as many people falsely claim. This proves that the AGW claims are a myth just as I claimed in my OP.

This poll is no more flawed than the polls you have presented here. It is also peer reviewed. This supports my assertion that the claim of AGW settled science is indeed a myth.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Interesting study. What is it about this particular survey that convinces you? It seems to contain the same methodological flaws that you used to discard all the data from the previous surveys we have looked at. In fact, this study is more of a subjective sociological think-piece regarding the complex nature of human thought. One major conclusion: Differe ...[text shortened]... nt in general is a quite ‘handy’ framing for top management of oil and gas corporations.[/quote]

The assertion that oil and gas companies will be hurt by a carbon tax is a myth. They would merely pass the tax on to the consumer and not be hurt at all.
That is why ExxonMobile has publicly supported a carbon tax. Since ExxonMobile is the largest natural gas producer in the USA they would actually benefit from an increase in natural gas production.

A carbon tax would be the best thing to ever happen to Exxon Mobile. Profits would soar!

Originally posted by @metal-brain
The assertion that oil and gas companies will be hurt by a carbon tax is a myth. They would merely pass the tax on to the consumer and not be hurt at all.
That is why ExxonMobile has publicly supported a carbon tax. Since ExxonMobile is the largest natural gas producer in the USA they would actually benefit from an increase in natural gas production.

A carbon tax would be the best thing to ever happen to Exxon Mobile. Profits would soar!

I think you need to study economics a bit more. If the carbon tax was passed on to the consumer there would be more likely a LOSS of profit because people would find other means for heating, like geo thermal, solar, wind and the like. I don't know how much the carbon tax would be if added to the price of natural gas but suppose it increases the consumer cost by 10% that would have zero effect or negative effect on profits since if they made say 20% profit, also a guess, and added 10% to the price the amount of dollars coming in would be the same at best so there would be no huge profit windfall.

Why would you ever even THINK they would actually profit from increasing the price of gas when the increase would just go to pay the tax? If the price went through the roof, people would for sure go to alternate means for house heating, more insulation, solar panels, geo thermal heating and the like. People are not stupid and if the gas companies bumped the price 30% when the tax alone would add 10%, the profits would go up for a while but people would catch on especially in light of the bad press such a move would make.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
In other words, you don't want to provide something to me that you have already read and could save me time and effort to find it.

If you want to make me do needless work because you have a bias against me just admit it. Never mind the fact that I cannot find it. That seems to be what you are hoping for. Heck, maybe it doesn't exist and you are just ...[text shortened]... e. We could become a culture of inconsideration here on this forum. Needless work for everybody.

Seriously?
When you posted earlier:

"Below is an article that Fred Singer wrote a comment below it. It will give you an idea how biased the alarmists are:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7370/full/478428a.html "

did I ask you to provide me something else?

You appear to conclude that, as regards your interlocutors, a link is all one needs in order to access the required related data and pieces of information, but when you have to check the data provided to you by your interlocutors in order to evaluate them and comment, you think this is not the proper approach anymore because in your opinion it is either a bad case of "bias against you" or an attitude grounded on false etiquette. Why is that?

Next: I do not want you to do needless work. You simply have to evaluate on your own the available herenow data, for nobody can do such a thing for you but you. In case you cannot find data that are crucial in the context of your sensemaking process and this inability to proceed is related to a link that I happen to offer, kindly please inform me and I will try my best to help.

Furthermore, I think nobody should copy and paste here material per se, because this is a forum about the evaluation of the scientific facts and evidence that we happen to discuss. The links related to the peer reviewed papers and the rest scientific data are enough and just a click away. One has to go there and read and evaluate them carefully, to make up one's mind and then to come back here and comment.
I strongly believe this is not at all "needless work for everybody", but the necessary chores of everybody whose approach is scientific. Therefore, the culture of inconsideration is not a part of mine.

As regards humy and wildgrass, I 'm sure you are completely wrong. They are not dishonest. It is you the one who until this very moment has an agenda.
In case you see me the way you see humy and wildgrass, kindly please feel free to reply not to this post😵

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/13/thousands-of-scientists-issue-bleak-second-notice-to-humanity/?utm_term=.0141ecfa385b

15 THOUSAND scientists issuing this warning.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
It convinces me that anyone can find a poll that is biased either way. This demonstrates that the science is not settled as many people falsely claim. This proves that the AGW claims are a myth just as I claimed in my OP.

This poll is no more flawed than the polls you have presented here. It is also peer reviewed. This supports my assertion that the ...[text shortened]... tled science is indeed a myth.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

Biased either way? You clearly don't read stuff before you post the links. black beetle and I both read it, and we don't think it says what you think it says. The majority of respondents selected "Comply with Kyoto" as their logical frame. A direct quote from your reference: "there seems to be consensus that anthropogenic climate change presents a profound global challenge".

Please reiterate how you interpret the major conclusions of that study. Did you read it?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
The assertion that oil and gas companies will be hurt by a carbon tax is a myth. They would merely pass the tax on to the consumer and not be hurt at all.
That is why ExxonMobile has publicly supported a carbon tax. Since ExxonMobile is the largest natural gas producer in the USA they would actually benefit from an increase in natural gas production.

A carbon tax would be the best thing to ever happen to Exxon Mobile. Profits would soar!

Again, that's not what the article (nor I) asserted. You're not reading.