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.
With no additional CO2, there will be mass migrations....Where will they go?
In as little as three decades, much of the Middle East and North Africa will be too hot for humans to survive, forcing people to flee in droves, according to stark climate predictions released last month.
And all the while my region's summers are no warmer now than what they were 20 years ago. Or even 30 years ago... In fact summers in Illinois haven't changed in trend since 1895.... NOAA's public access data so you can be sure it's accurate.
And yes, scientists are trying to figure out why their regional models are failing for the Midwest (and elsewhere).
I suspect we will be closer to the worst case scenario as the best case relies on a number of factors to dramatically change (scenario B1) while we are currently on the worst case pathway.
I think many can appreciate the irony and humor that YOU have "no formal scientific training, degrees, credentials, or publications" in ANY earth sciences field, yet you "presume superior knowledge and expertise" in all the earth science fields.
Is that not a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect that you continue to fling against others?
Did you ever stop for a moment and wonder why every major science academy, science institution, and University worldwide accepts the fact of anthropogenic global warming? That's millions of scientists worldwide with "formal scientific training, degrees, and publications" in earth sciences fields.
But according to you, they are all 'grossly ignorant of scientific principles'? I guess you never stopped to think that maybe it's YOU who is clueless when it comes to all the science completely outside you own alleged field? And not the millions of scientists with expertise in their own earth sciences fields? Nah, no-one has more knowledge and expertise in all the earth sciences fields than you right?
So, you have somehow managed to delude yourself that you know more than millions of scientists with "advanced degrees, expertise and publications" in earth sciences fields, because you supposedly have degrees, training and some publications in a completely irrelevant and unrelated field?
You've shown in your posts that you just google search the internet and find and mindlessly parrot pseudoscience trash written by laypeople on conspiracy blogs, junk-science websites and the tabloid press that agrees with your extreme ideological confirmation bias. You avoid any published peer-reviewed science or any information from other valid science sources like it's the plague. On the extremely rare occasion you do post a link to a published Journal article on this topic, it's apparent that you hadn't read it and it doesn't actually support what you claim it does. Pretty much just like any other ill-informed clueless science denier.
Can you not appreciate the humor? Is the irony lost on you?
1. Most "scientists" do not agree with AGW- that is a liberal myth. Most true scientists understand that AGW is an unsubstantitated hypothesis for which there has not been conclusive data. Those are the facts. Very few true "scientists" embrace AGW as an undisputed fact.
2. You have no scientific training, education, or publication record in the scientific literature: I do. Given that, I have a better abililty to understand and evaulaute the methods and statistical evalution of any scientific publication. That is the simple fact. Do you presume to know more about law than an attorney you consult? I don't.
3. The "97% of scientists myth" you cling to has been proven to be a myth. The actual number of those questionably supporting AW is 32%. Those absolutely supporting AGW is .3%- they are a lunatic fringe group.
4. You are on an "ethics review committee". That is an admission you have no formal training, no publication record, and no clue about science.
5. You have no formal training in statistics- I do.
6. I have offered to send my formal degrees, academic posts, and publications to a member on this site from my state. He could confirm/verify and send to you. You are not interested in knowing that I am who I say I am, as it shows that you are a fool in comparison. You are simply an "internet scientist". You don't want to know the truth (as it would show that you have no credentials to debate me in science) and would dispel your views of your cult. Those in Jonestown has similar sentiments. I have simply asked you to QUESTION (which is what any scientist would ask anyone to do) your premise. You refuse to do so, as you are not interested in science, but only the beliefs of the cult. WAKE UP
Let me know if you want to know. However, rabid cult members never want to know the truth- they only want to confirm and consolidate the cult. You are an unfortunate cult member who simply cannot understand that you have been beguiled by interests other than science. Your lack of scientific knowledge an training have made you the perfect "useful idiot", as you are very passionate about things you have no clue about.
At this point, you may need some deprogramming therapy and some time to separate yourself from the cult. It will take some time, but be patient. Other cult members have discovered thier errors and have led productive lives.
You folks have to realize.... After a certain age the mind just doesn't work so well... Give the OP some slack as I'm sure some days are better than others.... It wasn't a good day for mental clarity when the OP started a thread saying we needed to pollute for plants.
The delusional rant of a AGW cult member who refuses to evaluate and identify the history of CO2, plant and animal life, as well as temperature during earth's geological history. Any time you would like to compare academic credentials and IQ, let me know. The fact that I am worth probably 1,000X what you are would suggest the relative importance that society holds for your "talents" and efforts compared to mine. Pouring coffee at Starbucks is not a skill or academic talent.
Only an idiot would say, "we must do it.................... for the plants". This belies complete ignorance about the realationship between gross plant mass and CO2, its impact on food resources on the planet, climate on the planet, as well as CO2 regulation. A child-like response would minimize the beneficial contribution of CO2, as it dispels the single notion belief of the eco-terrorist AGW cult- CO2 (which, in addition to O2 and H2O, is ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE) is a "pollutant" and evil.
It is only a matter of time before these fools declare water and oxygen to be "pollutants". They are that crazy.
1. Most "scientists" do not agree with AGW- that is a liberal myth. Most true scientists understand that AGW is an unsubstantitated hypothesis for which there has not been conclusive data. Those are the facts. Very few true "scientists" embrace AGW as an undisputed fact.
Delusional Denier myth. Just scan the literature (You've shown you have no online access to Journal databases, so maybe go to a local University-or ask your pretend friend "Yolanda" ). Go to any of the major earth sciences conferences like the AGU Conference. Go to any of the websites of any of major science academies worldwide and read their statements on climate change. Find ANY published peer-reviewed paper that has been able to refute ALL the evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Go read an atmospheric physics textbook. etc etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
2. You have no scientific training, education, or publication record in the scientific literature:
And once again, you make false claims about me when you don't have a clue about me. As I have already stated, I don't claim personal expertise in earth sciences fields because they are outside my field of science and my area of expertise. I defer to the work of scientists who do have expertise in their own fields. Unlike you, who claims expertise in many different fields completely outside your own alleged field. Learn your limitations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
I do. Given that, I have a better abililty to understand and evaulaute the methods and statistical evalution of any scientific publication.
That is the simple fact. Do you presume to know more about law than an attorney you consult? I don't.
Do you presume to know more than all the specialists in earth sciences fields like atmospheric physics, oceanography, paleoclimataology, geology, glaciology etc etc. Why yes, you do. All the time. Apparently you have no clue about your own limitations. If an atmospheric physicist with several advanced degrees, 30 years of research experience and several hundred published articles in prestigious Journals, (but with no expertise at all in your field) told you your work was just evidence-free pseudoscience, would you automatically accept that he has enough expertise in your field to have a valid opinion? Or would you tell him he's a fool who doesn't know what he's talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
3. The "97% of scientists myth" you cling to has been proven to be a myth. The actual number of those questionably supporting AW is 32%. Those absolutely supporting AGW is .3%- they are a lunatic fringe group.
Delusional denier myth. You obviously haven't read any of studies and you're just repeating ridiculous nonsense claims from conspiracy blogs etc. .3%?? LOL! And you call me an idiot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
.
4. You are on an "ethics review committee". That is an admission you have no formal training, no publication record, and no clue about science.
You keep claiming this? Where have I posted anything about my academic qualifications, background and profession on this forum? You know nothing about my background.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
5. You have no formal training in statistics- I do.
LOL! Your 'formal' training seems to be at the level of basic high-school stats judging by what you wrote on another thread. And once again, you make false claims about me for which you have no evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
6. I have offered to send my formal degrees, academic posts, and publications to a member on this site from my state. He could confirm/verify and send to you. You are not interested in knowing that I am who I say I am, as it shows that you are a fool in comparison.
Who CARES??? You have no qualifications or expertise in any earth sciences fields. You are not an 'authority' in any earth sciences field. You are not an expert in climate science. So who cares what your completely uninformed ideologically blinded opinions are on this topic? You are appealing to a false authority - yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
You are simply an "internet scientist". You don't want to know the truth (as it would show that you have no credentials to debate me in science) and would dispel your views of your cult. Those in Jonestown has similar sentiments. I have simply asked you to QUESTION (which is what any scientist would ask anyone to do) your premise. You refuse to do so, as you are not interested in science, but only the beliefs of the cult. WAKE UP
You're the one posting links to pseudoscience conspiracy rubbish, like the nutter little fringe group website Principia Scientific - a cultish group of "Sky Dragon Slayers" who claim the earth's natural greenhouse effect 'violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics', a forum post with a made-up chart by a biblical nutter with no qualifications in any field of science who believes that the Bible can predict the climate, conspiracy blogs, industry funded junkscience websites, trashy journalists etc. But NO published articles from Journals that support your misinformed claims. Wake up and realise what a joke your posts are on this topic on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Let me know if you want to know. However, rabid cult members never want to know the truth- they only want to confirm and consolidate the cult. You are an unfortunate cult member who simply cannot understand that you have been beguiled by interests other than science. Your lack of scientific knowledge an training have made you the perfect "useful idiot", as you are very passionate about things you have no clue about.
At this point, you may need some deprogramming therapy and some time to separate yourself from the cult. It will take some time, but be patient. Other cult members have discovered thier errors and have led productive lives.
Who cares what your qualifications are if they are completely irrelevant to any of the many different fields involved in climate science? Do you have a brain tumor or some cognitive disorder or something? Your posts are completely delusional on this topic.
About the only thing I an even secure about is Humans are converting billions of tons of nearly pure Carbon into hot Carbon dioxide to boil water to operated steam turbine powered electrical generators. As the atmosphere is large but not infinite and has a very complex, somewhat but not completely understood, interaction with CO2 I am not certain of what the atmosphere will do as a result.
As far as answering the OP's question I respond with whatever it becomes as a result of both natural forces and human generated CO2 loading. There is NO "perfect" concentration.
Whatever does happen to the climate on a world wide or regional scale we humans will have to learn how to cope. That will not be easy to say the least.
2. You have no scientific training, education, or publication record in the scientific literature: I do.
Something does not ring true here. I also spent several years in an academic research position and am familiar with the language of science and research papers. The language is invariably professional, measured, rational, and not bellicose. Your posts are anything but that.
Here is an example:
Quote:
The delusional rant of a AGW cult member who refuses to evaluate and identify the history of CO2, plant and animal life, as well as temperature during earth's geological history. Any time you would like to compare academic credentials and IQ, let me know. The fact that I am worth probably 1,000X what you are would suggest the relative importance that society holds for your "talents" and efforts compared to mine. Pouring coffee at Starbucks is not a skill or academic talent.
Only an idiot would say....
Not exactly the words of science.
If your background is research, surely you must know that nobody in science claims to have absolute knowledge about any theory. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is one of the most heavily tested and verified theories in physics, and it is still considered to be a theory.
AGW will never be proved nor disproved. It will always be a case of likely outcomes and what the cost is if AGW exists and we ignore it. It is a bet. But apparently it is a bet most AGW researchers are in favor of taking.
Something does not ring true here. I also spent several years in an academic research position and am familiar with the language of science and research papers. The language is invariably professional, measured, rational, and not bellicose. Your posts are anything but that.
Here is an example:
Not exactly the words of science.
If your background is research, surely you must know that nobody in science claims to have absolute knowledge about any theory. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is one of the most heavily tested and verified theories in physics, and it is still considered to be a theory.
AGW will never be proved nor disproved. It will always be a case of likely outcomes and what the cost is if AGW exists and we ignore it. It is a bet. But apparently it is a bet most AGW researchers are in favor of taking.
You obviously have never listened to Michael Mann.
The delusional rant of a AGW cult member who refuses to evaluate and identify the history of CO2, plant and animal life, as well as temperature during earth's geological history. Any time you would like to compare academic credentials and IQ, let me know. The fact that I am worth probably 1,000X what you are would suggest the relative importance that society holds for your "talents" and efforts compared to mine. Pouring coffee at Starbucks is not a skill or academic talent.
Only an idiot would say, "we must do it.................... for the plants". This belies complete ignorance about the realationship between gross plant mass and CO2, its impact on food resources on the planet, climate on the planet, as well as CO2 regulation. A child-like response would minimize the beneficial contribution of CO2, as it dispels the single notion belief of the eco-terrorist AGW cult- CO2 (which, in addition to O2 and H2O, is ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE) is a "pollutant" and evil.
It is only a matter of time before these fools declare water and oxygen to be "pollutants". They are that crazy.
Youre the one who started the thread about the need CO2 for the plants. You obviously don't comprehend what you said but that's par the course for the cult of deniers.
China is emitting a lot of CO2, why are their cities covered in smog and not blooming with plant life?
Youre the one who started the thread about the need CO2 for the plants. You obviously don't comprehend what you said but that's par the course for the cult of deniers.
China is emitting a lot of CO2, why are their cities covered in smog and not blooming with plant life?
CO2 has nothing to do with China's air pollution problems. (and China is greening too)
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.
). Go to any of the major earth sciences conferences like the AGU Conference. Go to any of the websites of any of major science academies worldwide and read their statements on climate change. Find ANY published peer-reviewed paper that has been able to refute ALL the evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Go read an atmospheric physics textbook. etc etc etc.
