Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not a "fake university"... it's not a real, or online one either. It's just the name of a Youtube channel.
And yes, it has a conservative viewpoint. Other channels have liberal viewpoints. This is allowed. I hope this clears things up.
Why call it a University? Are they trying to make themselves sound academic and credible?
If you want to believe that's a credible video, go right ahead.
I'll go with what the all the major science institutions worldwide say, based on physics and a very strong consilience of evidence from many different fields of science.
I'm well aware of earth's climate history, and am also aware of the causes of warm periods and cold periods in the past.... Are you?.....Today the evidence points to human activities causing rapid warming.
The term climate change has been around a lot longer than the term global warming...I agree they refer in a way to different things, but today AGW is what is causing the climate to change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988....
Let me ask you a legitimate question... not one with thinly veiled sarcasm, but with sincerity.
If it were found out that Human-caused climate change were a fraud, that we had over-hyped the problems man has caused in the global warming debate, that our contribution has been greatly exaggerated and that what we've seen in the temperature rises were flukes, or just natural fluctuations of any multi-variable situation?
Then where would that leave the IPCC - the International Panel for Climate Change, formed to study man's affect on climate - if it were determined they no longer had a purpose? Where would it leave all those employees - more importantly, where would it leave all that money for budgets, salaries, etc.?
An organization as large, and as seemingly important as the IPCC must justify its existence in some way. Livelihoods are dependent on it's purpose. I do not question it's purpose, but I will question an entire organization's motives when it's sole purpose is dedicated to one cause and study/perpetuate it, for as long as the cause exists, so does the organization.
And yes, the same can be said for the organizations that are funded for contrary opinions.
Let me ask you a legitimate question... not one with thinly veiled sarcasm, but with sincerity.
If it were found out that Human-caused climate change were a fraud, that we had over-hyped the problems man has caused in the global warming debate, that our contribution has been greatly exaggerated and that what we've seen in the temperature rises were flukes, or just natural fluctuations of any multi-variable situation?
Then where would that leave the IPCC - the International Panel for Climate Change, formed to study man's affect on climate - if it were determined they no longer had a purpose? Where would it leave all those employees - more importantly, where would it leave all that money for budgets, salaries, etc.?
An organization as large, and as seemingly important as the IPCC must justify its existence in some way. Livelihoods are dependent on it's purpose. I do not question it's purpose, but I will question an entire organization's motives when it's sole purpose is dedicated to one cause and study/perpetuate it, for as long as the cause exists, so does the organization.
And yes, the same can be said for the organizations that are funded for contrary opinions.
For you to write what you did in your post, you must really have no idea at all just how broad all the evidence is for man-made global warming from many different lines of scientific investigation. It's not just 'temperature rises'. This suggests you've never even read an IPCC report or any of the research. Ask yourself what's stopping you from reading the IPCC AR5 report, especially the Working Group 1 (WG1) report on the physical science basis.
You also don't even appear to understand what the IPCC is, what it does, and how it works. It's not a large organisation. It doesn't have 'lot's of employees'. The IPCC doesn't do any research or studies itself. For the physical science WG1 report, it helps coordinate thousands of scientists from all over the world who are experts in many different fields who volunteer their time to assess all the published scientific literature and put together an Assessment report every few years. You can find out what the 3 different volunteer Working Groups and Task forces do on the IPCC website.
Let me ask you a legitimate question... not one with thinly veiled sarcasm, but with sincerity.
If you don't even know what the IPCC is and what it does, and haven't even bothered to read the Assessment reports, why would you expect anyone who has, to take your opinions seriously?
I'll go with what the all the major science institutions worldwide say, based on physics and a very strong consilience of evidence from many different fields of science.
...all of which receive BILLIONS in funding every single year predicated on their being an imminent crisis to address.
It's amazing that people think science can only be corrupted on the side of the skeptics but not on the side of the alarmists.
That is quite aside from the fact that science has nothing to do with consensus or some kind of popularity contest where one side can erroneously claim they have "97%" support for their theory. That isn't the way science works and never has been. No good scientist should give a crap about consensus, but funding agencies and activists sure do!
All this is, is a logical fallacy appeal to authority to try and shut down rigorous debate and skepticism and bully everyone into conformity. That isn't science, it's activism and politics.
Your statement above basically shows that you are ignorant of science and you are just co-opting it's name and reputation in some attempt to lend credibility to your political views on the subject.
Well, you are in the right forum for it. This is after all the politics forum.
For you to write what you did in your post, you must really have no idea at all just how broad all the evidence is for man-made global warming from many different lines of scientific investigation. It's not just 'temperature rises'. This suggests you've never even read an IPCC report or any of the research. Ask yourself what's stopping you from reading the IPCC AR5 report, especially the Working Group 1 (WG1) report on the physical science basis.
You also don't even appear to understand what the IPCC is, what it does, and how it works. It's not a large organisation. The IPCC doesn't do any research or studies itself. For the physical science WG1 report, it helps coordinate thousands of scientists from all over the world who are experts in many different fields who volunteer their time to assess all the published scientific literature and put together an Assessment report every few years. You can find out what the different volunteer Working Groups do on the IPCC website.
If you haven't even bothered to read the Assessment reports, why would you expect anyone who has, to take your opinions seriously?
........yet you cannot answer the "inconvenient truths" of the following, which would cause anyone with an ounce of sense to ponder the hypothesis:
1. In the Great Depression, industrial output globally fell 65% (and man-made CO2), yet temperatures INCREASED. This was over a ten year period, which is far greater than the 2 year half life of CO2 in the atmosphere. A reduction of man-made CO2 on this scale could never be replicated again. Yet, the AGW crowd claims that if we reduce CO2 output, the planet will cool, yet IT DID NOT!
2. Atmospheric CO2 changed very little during the Great Depression (demonstrating in the largest "global experiment" ever conducted that man-made CO2 has very little impact on atmospheric CO2).
3. During the recent "great recession" in the world, temps (according to the AGW crowd) INCREASED (although they actually did not).
4. CO2 levels in the past history of earth were 5-6X what they are now, yet the earth thrived.
5. There are fossilized tropical plants and animals above the arctic circle which date to current continental positions.
6. Man made CO2 only accounts for 3% of atmospheric CO2.
7. The major "greenhouse gases" are water vapor and methane.
8. The earth goes through very consistent, periodic climate cycles due to the wobble of the earth's orbit, solar activity, and volcanic activity.
9. The "98% of scientists support AGW" claim has been examined and that number is actually .3%.
...all of which receive BILLIONS in funding every single year predicated on their being an imminent crisis to address.
It's amazing that people think science can only be corrupted on the side of the skeptics but not on the side of the alarmists.
That is quite aside from the fact that science has nothing to do with consensus or some kind of popularity contest where one side can erroneously claim they have "97%" support for their theory. That isn't the way science works and never has been. No good scientist should give a crap about consensus, but funding agencies and activists sure do!
All this is, is a logical fallacy appeal to authority to try and shut down rigorous debate and skepticism and bully everyone into conformity. That isn't science, it's activism and politics.
Your statement above basically shows that you are ignorant of science and you are just co-opting it's name and reputation in some attempt to lend credibility to your political views on the subject.
Well, you are in the right forum for it. This is after all the politics forum.
I don't actually have any political views on the subject. I don't think science should be political. That seems to be more your thing.
I suggest you look up how scientific organizations like The American Institute of Physics are funded. These scientific organisations don't receive "billions in funding every year". Every major science organisation worldwide (like the American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, the British Institute of Physics etc) has made statements that anthropogenic global warming and climate change is real and a concern. Try to find one that says it's not.
As for '97%'. It's not an "erroneous claim". "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies" Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., ... & Nuccitelli, D. (2016). Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002.
I suggest you also look up what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority actually is. It's an appeal to a false authority, not referring to legitimate authority like scientific experts and scientific organisations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
