Let's nuke climate change!

@wildgrass said
lol it's funny that you keep bringing this up. You seem to think it's necessary, even though all your evil leftists were in charge for 8 years and didn't even propose it.

Are you being fooled to hate science by Right wing propaganda?

You hate the science. You claimed a consensus existed that does not. You claimed hurricanes would get worse as the climate warms and the science says otherwise. You are wrong about almost everything you have claimed and you have the gall to claim I hate science?

Science is on my side. You were duped into thinking the opposite was true because you believed there was a consensus that didn't exist. Leftists didn't really do anything for 8 years. They pretended the Paris Accords was a true effort when it meant nothing. It was a non-binding agreement that had completely voluntary goals for each nation. Most democrats do not even know that so they think a meaningless agreement was something significant. Even the Presidential candidates seem to think that. Obama was too busy extending the Bush tax cuts to fix the economy. A tax at that time would have been stupid. How would he explain cutting income taxes while implementing another tax? It wouldn't make any sense.

A carbon tax is the plan. Just because they are patient doesn't prove anything. 2 out of 3 democrat candidates included in the debates are fine with a carbon tax. That is a clear majority.

@metal-brain said
You hate the science. You claimed a consensus existed that does not. You claimed hurricanes would get worse as the climate warms and the science says otherwise. You are wrong about almost everything you have claimed and you have the gall to claim I hate science?

Science is on my side. You were duped into thinking the opposite was true because you believed there was a c ...[text shortened]... 3 democrat candidates included in the debates are fine with a carbon tax. That is a clear majority.

We had a whole thread on the consensus, in which numerous polling studies were presented. Each one came to the same conclusion, but you dismissed all the findings simply because less than 100% of emails were responded to. Do the math, and even if all the non-responders responded in support of your world view (which in reality is probably the oppose, since science deniers are very outspoken), there'd still be a consensus that supported >50% of global warming is man-made. Your criticism is fake news.

The rest of your post veers way off course. You seem to think that humans are not capable of solving problems.

@wildgrass said
We had a whole thread on the consensus, in which numerous polling studies were presented. Each one came to the same conclusion, but you dismissed all the findings simply because less than 100% of emails were responded to. Do the math, and even if all the non-responders responded in support of your world view (which in reality is probably the oppose, since science deniers ar ...[text shortened]... f your post veers way off course. You seem to think that humans are not capable of solving problems.

There is no consensus. It is based on another lie.

Those polls you are referring to prove a minority of climate scientist's opinions, not a majority. If you want to claim a majority of climate scientists believe something you have to poll a majority.

You want to fight nature. You have been brainwashed into thinking GW is so horrible that you think natural causes are a problem that needs to be solved. That is a good indication that you don't really believe man is the main cause of GW today. You don't believe the very polls you claim to.

@metal-brain said
There is no consensus. It is based on another lie.

Those polls you are referring to prove a minority of climate scientist's opinions, not a majority. If you want to claim a majority of climate scientists believe something you have to poll a majority.

You want to fight nature. You have been brainwashed into thinking GW is so horrible that you think natural causes ar ...[text shortened]... n't really believe man is the main cause of GW today. You don't believe the very polls you claim to.

If you want to think you are in the majority, only speak to those that agree with you.

@kellyjay said
If you want to think you are in the majority, only speak to those that agree with you.

For once I know exactly what you are talking about 🙂

@humy said
For once I know exactly what you are talking about 🙂

It most certainly isn't because I only hang out with those I agree with. I'm a firm believer if you cannot stand to have your beliefs challenged there is something not quite right.

@kellyjay said
It most certainly isn't because I only hang out with those I agree with. I'm a firm believer if you cannot stand to have your beliefs challenged there is something not quite right.

I have no problem with that as long as it is an honest challenge. If you are going to say most climate scientists agree you have to poll most climate scientists. If you don't be honest and say a minority of climate scientists agree, not a majority. You cannot honestly claim a minority is a majority. That is called a lie and alarmists condone lying like that. They condone it because they are afraid of a proper poll because the result would be much different.
Get a job as a census taker and suggest only polling a minority and they will look at you like you are crazy. There is a good reason for that. It is stupid!

2020census.gov/job

I think a proper poll has been done by alarmists and they covered it up because it proved them wrong. That is why they like minority opinions so much. Would it kill them to support a proper poll of the majority? What are they afraid of? The truth, that is what they are afraid of. They are afraid of debates too. They avoid debates like the plague because they know they would look stupid. The PBS Newshour never allows debates. Al Gore always refuses debates because he knows he will be exposed as a liar and propagandist. He still pushes the myth CO2 drove temps in the ice core samples. The opposite is true and he knows it, but he just keeps on lying.

Liars always refuse to debate. That is why.

@metal-brain said
There is no consensus. It is based on another lie.

Those polls you are referring to prove a minority of climate scientist's opinions, not a majority. If you want to claim a majority of climate scientists believe something you have to poll a majority.

You want to fight nature. You have been brainwashed into thinking GW is so horrible that you think natural causes ar ...[text shortened]... n't really believe man is the main cause of GW today. You don't believe the very polls you claim to.

We already did this. Your statements here are inaccurate. More than a minority have been contacted. In the other thread, you claimed that all climate scientists needed to weigh in for a consensus to be acceptable, which is unrealistic.

With this issue, of course there are nuanced opinions and of course there are people that disagree (like your guy who says CO2 cools the atmosphere). But the consensus exists. If I remember correctly, 65% of climate scientists agreed with the statement that >50% of global warming is man made.

Anthropogenic climate forcings are real and measurable and significant and reversible. To deny this is to deny the current science. All the top-tier academic journals would love to see evidence to the contrary, but the effect is so obvious. If you wanted to, I guess you could actively suppress evidence and force working climate scientists to amend their public statements and eliminate funding mechanisms for further studying the role of humans in climate and mitigation methods. Or..... accept the science and act accordingly.

@wildgrass said
We already did this. Your statements here are inaccurate. More than a minority have been contacted. In the other thread, you claimed that all climate scientists needed to weigh in for a consensus to be acceptable, which is unrealistic.

With this issue, of course there are nuanced opinions and of course there are people that disagree (like your guy who says CO2 coo ...[text shortened]... he role of humans in climate and mitigation methods. Or..... accept the science and act accordingly.

More than a minority, what is that 3 instead of 2? At least be specific if you are going to make claims about a poll, who and how were the people contacted? How many from what disciplines were chosen? If you are going to suggest a critical view is inaccurate give the positive details to show your right, you saying your right just because is unrealistic.

@kellyjay said
More than a minority, what is that 3 instead of 2? At least be specific if you are going to make claims about a poll, who and how were the people contacted? How many from what disciplines were chosen? If you are going to suggest a critical view is inaccurate give the positive details to show your right, you saying your right just because is unrealistic.

Yeah sorry. Unfortunate that I can't search for the content of the (long) prior thread. We looked at several independent studies that polled scientists with diverse backgrounds and asked them a series of questions about climate change. Both polls had similar results, and even if you took the non-responders and assumed they were skeptics there'd still be a majority that favored the conclusion that >50% of global warming is man made.

It's not 98% as some media outlets have suggested, but it is ~65%.

@wildgrass said
Yeah sorry. Unfortunate that I can't search for the content of the (long) prior thread. We looked at several independent studies that polled scientists with diverse backgrounds and asked them a series of questions about climate change. Both polls had similar results, and even if you took the non-responders and assumed they were skeptics there'd still be a majority that favo ...[text shortened]... of global warming is man made.

It's not 98% as some media outlets have suggested, but it is ~65%.

So I am left with taking your word for it? Not trying to be a smart a$$ here, but it is a bit pretentious to argue over numbers you don't have, and claim someone is in error because they don't agree with your numbers.

@kellyjay said
So I am left with taking your word for it? Not trying to be a smart a$$ here, but it is a bit pretentious to argue over numbers you don't have, and claim someone is in error because they don't agree with your numbers.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/anthropogenic-global-warming-myth.170415

@wildgrass said
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/anthropogenic-global-warming-myth.170415

I have not looked at it yet, but that took some effort, thank you.

At least there seems to be one bit of good news here;

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-pollution-wont-global-spike.html

And a mixture of bad and good news here;

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-chief-july-equaled-surpassed-hottest.html
"...The latest data from the World Meteorological Organization shows the month of July "at least equaled if not surpassed the hottest month in recorded history"
...
He pointed to some good news, including solar and onshore wind now the cheapest sources of new power in virtually all major economies.

"Many countries—from Chile to Finland and from the United Kingdom to the Marshall Islands—have concrete and credible plans to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century," ..."

But I have to be very suspicious of the above claim that United Kingdom has "concrete and credible plans to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century," because all I have so far seen so far here in my country is evidence to the exact opposite to that above claim with just empty words of false promises not backed up by meaningful action but rather just perfetic token gestures to just try and fool the voters they are doing something.

@KellyJay
What we are trying to get at here is what is your hidden motive for objecting to clear evidence by many climate scientists humans are causing a large portion of climate change.
Hidden meaning something you don't want to talk about that causes you to have this fringe view.