7 ms·

Any non-expert has a very limited capability of reviewing any significant fraction of published literature on such a vast field in detail, yet alone understand

Any non-expert has a very limited capability of reviewing any significant fraction of published literature on such a vast field in detail, yet alone understand it or put it into proper perspective. Therefore, we (me, you and the parent poster included) do need to rely on experts to get an impression of what is most likely to be true. If you imagine you can do this yourself to any significant degree, you are almost certainly deluding yourself. That's why a figure such as 97% is so convincing, the remaining 3% (including Dr. Lindzen) nonwithstanding.

GlobalChange 11y ago
Except when the prevailing "consensus" is wrong and has been deceitfully pushed forward to enslave everyone else. If one follows the argument for CO2 as culprit for global warming than our energy problems are solved. All we have to do is build a CO2 power plant. We can use a candle and have infinity energy. Actually, no one else need more than a candle to do anything else. If we follow it to conclusion, we can melt the Golden Gate bridge with a candle. Any high school kid should be able to debunk this whole hallucinatory craziness that has spread in our society because nowadays no one care to spare a minute to actually think about the absurdity of the things they hear here and there. And oh, if its on CNN, or someone with "credentials" said it, then of course it is true. Well good luck. There is no significant ocean level change. Ask the Dutch. The moment they flee the Netherlands, then we may talk. Glaciers are rescinding because that is what they have been doing since the end of the last ice age (otherwise we would still be on a ice age). They didn't started rescinding 30 years ago, or 150 years ago. It is an ongoing process. Like climate is an ongoing process. It is not "climate change", as a noun, it's climate changeS, as sentence. It has been doing so for, at least, the past 4 billion years. That is the "norm", that it changes. Sometimes those changes are just more accentuated. There is absolutely no evidence (despite what everyone wants to convince themselves, wants to "believe" - science has gone from this a long time ago!) for CO2, let alone human influence on climate on a global scale. The article on The Guardian is deceitful. They should actually explain how they got to the 97%. Not that it matter anyway. Science is not a democracy; otherwise we could all "vote" for a free-gravity day so we could all enjoy a day floating. Those proposing the AGW cannot prove or advance their point. Models are video-games. Shall we start giving driver's licence to those scoring high on Need for Speed? It's a model, they are conceived to increase temperature if you increase CO2. That's what it's going to do. It is programmed to do just that, because that is how it was conceived. That is in no way to say we should not look for renewable resources (since the other one will eventually end anyway), nor that we should go on living like there's no tomorrow (for certainly there won't be). CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a fundamental element for life and it makes not direct harm. If we continue on this path of demonizing the CO2 the consequences will be way worse than a thousand degrees increase in temperature. Clime do changes and all the living creatures on this planet will face it. We must adapt, but we cannot change it. Not for better anyway and if we try we'll just make thing a thousand times worse. Drought will come, tempests, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanoes, they will come (and go) no matter what. We should and do need to be as prepared to them as possible, but we cannot stop those phenomena from happening, no more than we can hold the Sun in the middle of the sky. What should be addressed is what to do. Because when changes comes and they will indeed come, regardless, it won't care about political borders, religion, skin color, gender, age. This has long ceased to be a scientific debate. The science part is very simple: they cannot sustain their arguments and the hypothesis fails. Now the political/religious debate is another matter entirely. And that is the most important one, because it can makes us slaves (Hitler will look like a kindergarten prankster), or it can condemn half or more of the population of the world to its own luck. There should be no debate. There is no men made global warming by CO2. But climate do changes and will change. The Sahara was not always a desert. Nor the Amazon was always a forest. It's not us; that's just Nature. But we should control pollution (air, soil and water), try to improve recycling (still very inefficient), have better, renewable and more efficient sources, means of transportation and storage of energy. We should do that for all the right reasons and not the wrong one; certainly not based on lies and deceits. And we do need to understand the issue. This is one of the most challenging points in human life. It is certainly the most important issue of at least the past ten thousand years. The science of it is actually not complicated at all (high school knowledge). It doesn't mean we understand how it works; but we can certainly say how it doens't work. And boy, with CO2, it does not work!
- Klapaucius 11y ago
  You make a lot of claims. Mostly unsubstantiated. I do not see a point in engaging. And by the time the Dutch flee the Netherlands, it's too late to talk I'm afraid.

GlobalChange 11y ago

Except when the prevailing "consensus" is wrong and has been deceitfully pushed forward to enslave everyone else. If one follows the argument for CO2 as culprit for global warming than our energy problems are solved. All we have to do is build a CO2 power plant. We can use a candle and have infinity energy. Actually, no one else need more than a candle to do anything else. If we follow it to conclusion, we can melt the Golden Gate bridge with a candle. Any high school kid should be able to debunk this whole hallucinatory craziness that has spread in our society because nowadays no one care to spare a minute to actually think about the absurdity of the things they hear here and there. And oh, if its on CNN, or someone with "credentials" said it, then of course it is true. Well good luck. There is no significant ocean level change. Ask the Dutch. The moment they flee the Netherlands, then we may talk. Glaciers are rescinding because that is what they have been doing since the end of the last ice age (otherwise we would still be on a ice age). They didn't started rescinding 30 years ago, or 150 years ago. It is an ongoing process. Like climate is an ongoing process. It is not "climate change", as a noun, it's climate changeS, as sentence. It has been doing so for, at least, the past 4 billion years. That is the "norm", that it changes. Sometimes those changes are just more accentuated. There is absolutely no evidence (despite what everyone wants to convince themselves, wants to "believe" - science has gone from this a long time ago!) for CO2, let alone human influence on climate on a global scale. The article on The Guardian is deceitful. They should actually explain how they got to the 97%. Not that it matter anyway. Science is not a democracy; otherwise we could all "vote" for a free-gravity day so we could all enjoy a day floating. Those proposing the AGW cannot prove or advance their point. Models are video-games. Shall we start giving driver's licence to those scoring high on Need for Speed? It's a model, they are conceived to increase temperature if you increase CO2. That's what it's going to do. It is programmed to do just that, because that is how it was conceived. That is in no way to say we should not look for renewable resources (since the other one will eventually end anyway), nor that we should go on living like there's no tomorrow (for certainly there won't be). CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a fundamental element for life and it makes not direct harm. If we continue on this path of demonizing the CO2 the consequences will be way worse than a thousand degrees increase in temperature. Clime do changes and all the living creatures on this planet will face it. We must adapt, but we cannot change it. Not for better anyway and if we try we'll just make thing a thousand times worse. Drought will come, tempests, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanoes, they will come (and go) no matter what. We should and do need to be as prepared to them as possible, but we cannot stop those phenomena from happening, no more than we can hold the Sun in the middle of the sky. What should be addressed is what to do. Because when changes comes and they will indeed come, regardless, it won't care about political borders, religion, skin color, gender, age. This has long ceased to be a scientific debate. The science part is very simple: they cannot sustain their arguments and the hypothesis fails. Now the political/religious debate is another matter entirely. And that is the most important one, because it can makes us slaves (Hitler will look like a kindergarten prankster), or it can condemn half or more of the population of the world to its own luck. There should be no debate. There is no men made global warming by CO2. But climate do changes and will change. The Sahara was not always a desert. Nor the Amazon was always a forest. It's not us; that's just Nature. But we should control pollution (air, soil and water), try to improve recycling (still very inefficient), have better, renewable and more efficient sources, means of transportation and storage of energy. We should do that for all the right reasons and not the wrong one; certainly not based on lies and deceits. And we do need to understand the issue. This is one of the most challenging points in human life. It is certainly the most important issue of at least the past ten thousand years. The science of it is actually not complicated at all (high school knowledge). It doesn't mean we understand how it works; but we can certainly say how it doens't work. And boy, with CO2, it does not work!

Klapaucius 11y ago
You make a lot of claims. Mostly unsubstantiated. I do not see a point in engaging. And by the time the Dutch flee the Netherlands, it's too late to talk I'm afraid.