Articles such as this can be used by Climate Change deniers

[kenneal - lagger]

If you had read my post above you would see at the top that there is a reference to an article which covers the 97% consensus. You obviously haven't read it.

Sites like SkepticalScience and RealClimate are run by scientists working in the field of Climate Change who admittedly earn a salary from their work. The sort of sites that you get your propaganda from are run by big corporations that stand to lose billions of dollars from the loss of sales of their polluting products. Who has the most to lose? If you want to know who is telling the lies follow the money.

It is laughable that you expect us to believe that big pharma is telling us lies on the danger of their vaccines while big oil is telling us the truth over the danger of their polluting fossil fuel products.

[woodburner]

It seems you believe skepticalscience etc, that supports the “government funded bodies� where “scientists� collectively collect a rather large amount of money, but refuse to take any notice of just as plausible “scientists� who seem to have different information. Where have I said the oil companies are telling us the truth about polluting oil? What I question, until I get a satisfactory answer presented in a factual way (instead of near hysterical reaction because I dare to question the religeon), is the claim that CO2 is the main cause of a supposed global temperature increase.

[clv101]

What I question, until I get a satisfactory answer presented in a factual way (instead of near hysterical reaction because I dare to question the religeon), is the claim that CO2 is the main cause of a supposed global temperature increase.

You have the Internet (the most powerful research/information machine ever) in front front you right now. If you were genuinely interested you could do the research, learn what it is about the molecular structure of CO2, H2O, CH4 etc that gives them the vibration modes that cause them to interact with passing infrared radiation.

As for saying the global temperature increase is 'supposed', that's just daft. The global temperature increase is unequivocal.

[vtsnowedin]

What I question, until I get a satisfactory answer presented in a factual way (instead of near hysterical reaction because I dare to question the religeon), is the claim that CO2 is the main cause of a supposed global temperature increase.

You have the Internet (the most powerful research/information machine ever) in front front you right now. If you were genuinely interested you could do the research, learn what it is about the molecular structure of CO2, H2O, CH4 etc that gives them the vibration modes that cause them to interact with passing infrared radiation.

As for saying the global temperature increase is 'supposed', that's just daft. The global temperature increase is unequivocal.

You saw it on the internet so it must be true?
Considering some of the things I have viewed on the internet I don't think that is a very strong argument.
Yes you can search but how do you separate the truth from the false?

[kenneal - lagger]

It seems you believe skepticalscience etc, that supports the “government funded bodies� where “scientists� collectively collect a rather large amount of money, but refuse to take any notice of just as plausible “scientists� who seem to have different information.

So the first scientist mentioned in that video is Art Robinson who is the fount of all knowledge, even climate science, because you happen to passionately believe this biochemist's research on Vitamin C. Being an expert on Vitamin C does not qualify him to comment on climate change especially as he denies about 300 years of continuing research into the effects of CO2 and methane on the atmosphere. Can you point to any of his published research papers on Climate change, Woodburner? He is also against Darwinism believing instead in "Intelligent Design." Do you believe everything that Tommy Robinson says, because he's a right wing activist too or is it just the Vitamin C bit that floats your boat?

Where have I said the oil companies are telling us the truth about polluting oil? What I question, until I get a satisfactory answer presented in a factual way (instead of near hysterical reaction because I dare to question the religeon), is the claim that CO2 is the main cause of a supposed global temperature increase.

If you had read my remarks instead of going off on an hysterical bender yourself you would have seen that I merely questioned why you would believe what an oil company says about global warming when they have hundreds of billions of dollars to lose because science has shown that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Again, I ask you, why are the oil companies not funding a university department or two to find the actual cause of global warming if not CO2, methane and a few other trace gases? Their own research scientists told them 40 years ago that fossil fuel burning was causing climate change so they are spending millions of dollars on propaganda instead.

By the way, Woodburner, you are equally religious on the supposed benefits of excess Vitamin C in the diet, are you not?

[woodburner]

KL there is no benefit to excess vitamin C in. diet. Nor have I said that excess is beneficial. Excess vitamin C is excreted by the bodies systems. The benefit of vitamin C is having adequate to deal with the physiological state at the time. It will vary with the level of oxidatrive stress on the system. Chronically insufficient vitamin c will lead to osteoporosis and atherosclerosis, both being sub-clinical manifestations of scurvy. But just stick to your less than 400mg a day if you choose.

There is no point in discussing climate with you as you can only ridicule. You, as with others here and elsewhere frequently use the term “denier� for anyone who does not agree with your views. That is not science, so it’s no good pretending it is,

Here is something else for you to disagree with

and an input by Dr. Curry, obviously not worthy of the description “climate scientist�.

[kenneal - lagger]

If pointing out to you that you have not once ever given me anything that has been said by a climate scientist to bolster your denier point of view is ridiculing you then yes, according to your definition, I have ridiculed you.

If pointing out your vehement disbelief in what big business says about the efficacy of their food and medicines while you expect us to believe what big business says about the use of their fossil fuels is ridiculing you then yes, according to your definition, I have ridiculed you.

I would prefer to say that I have been pointing out the deficiencies in your argument rather than ridiculing you. I have also given you sources from qualified climate scientists answering the points from your unqualified non climate scientists, people who are often not even scientists, and you tell me that you are not going to read/listen to what they say. You deserve ridicule although I have generally desisted.

You have now given me a reference to a climate scientist and I thank you for that. I have said all along that 97% of climate scientists support global warming so you have, at last found one of the 3%. Dr Judith Curry's claims are debunked here although I doubt that you will want your preconceptions changed by reading it. Please also note that the new science continues to reinforce the message of previous science rather than bring it into question and that science generally shows the situation to be getting worse not better.

I note that you haven't mentioned the research from scientists working for Exxon Mobile and Shell that showed decades ago that fossil fuels produced by those companies were causing climate change. You have also not addressed the lack of research funded by oil companies to discredit climate change. With all their vast funds we might expect to see at least one school of "Real" Climate Science" funded by oil companies. Is there one? No! Not one. So perhaps they realise that there is no point trying to counter what the majority of climate scientists are saying so they just resort to propaganda, propaganda which conspiracy theorists like you, Woodburner, are happy to lap up.

[clv101]

You saw it on the internet so it must be true?
Considering some of the things I have viewed on the internet I don't think that is a very strong argument.
Yes you can search but how do you separate the truth from the false?

That isn't my argument. The point of the Internet here is to be able to educate yourself not just search for facts which may or not be junk (or just reinforce already held beliefs). It breaks down the traditional barriers of cost/access that previously hindered a lay person finding stuff out.

[vtsnowedin]

You saw it on the internet so it must be true?
Considering some of the things I have viewed on the internet I don't think that is a very strong argument.
Yes you can search but how do you separate the truth from the false?

That isn't my argument. The point of the Internet here is to be able to educate yourself not just search for facts which may or not be junk (or just reinforce already held beliefs). It breaks down the traditional barriers of cost/access that previously hindered a lay person finding stuff out.

I can, and always have been able to, educate myself on any subject that interested me at the local free library. Of course today they have computers where three rows of books used to stand.

[woodburner]

If pointing out to you that you have not once ever given me anything that has been said by a climate scientist to bolster your denier point of view is ridiculing you then yes, according to your definition, I have ridiculed you.

If pointing out your vehement disbelief in what big business says about the efficacy of their food and medicines while you expect us to believe what big business says about the use of their fossil fuels is ridiculing you then yes, according to your definition, I have ridiculed you.

I would prefer to say that I have been pointing out the deficiencies in your argument rather than ridiculing you. I have also given you sources from qualified climate scientists answering the points from your unqualified non climate scientists, people who are often not even scientists, and you tell me that you are not going to read/listen to what they say. You deserve ridicule although I have generally desisted.

You have now given me a reference to a climate scientist and I thank you for that. I have said all along that 97% of climate scientists support global warming so you have, at last found one of the 3%. Dr Judith Curry's claims are debunked here although I doubt that you will want your preconceptions changed by reading it. Please also note that the new science continues to reinforce the message of previous science rather than bring it into question and that science generally shows the situation to be getting worse not better.

There it is, skepticalscience, run by John Cook, who misrepresented the papers he claims to support global warming, debunks (whatever thet stupid word means) Judith Curry, and is believed because it suits anyone who is prepared to believe such a false figure of 97%. The problem is you appear to accept people as being climate scientists only if they preach what you already believe to be the consensus in which you believe.

Never mind it will be as nothing if this is true.

[eatyourveg]

“All kinds of people are changing their minds� and accepting the science, regardless of age, education level, or political affiliation, said Jennifer Marlon, a research scientist at Yale and an author of the new analysis. “I was surprised to see how consistent it is.�

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ging-minds

[Little John]

The scientific evidence supporting the fact of the climate warming up is incontrovertible.

The scientific evidence supporting the fact of the climate warming up being largely due to human activities is extremely strong and growing all the time.

That and that alone is what should be used to counter the howls of protest from the usual sources.

What articles like this Guardian piece are doing, however, is employing the same kind of supercilious, sneering, dumb-ass appeal to bourgeois herd mentality that they employ in the rest of the hogwash they pretend is journalism.

This kind of bullshit does those who wish to advance a rational argument no favours.

[eatyourveg]

''This kind of bullshit does those who wish to advance a rational argument no favours.''

The article isn't presenting arguments, it is recording shifts in opinion and offering a few tips on methods of putting arguments forward.

But yes, the Guardian is pretty up itself in general but that doesn't invalidate everything they present. I am sure if you were a one armed, one legged, mute LBGT activist with a massive chip on your shoulder you'd love it. Just admit it.

[kenneal - lagger]

....Never mind it will be as nothing if this is true.

And I give you this in return.

And a number of climate scientists contribute to www.skepticalscience.com not just John Cook. If you don't like skepticalscience try www.Realclimate.org instead. They will tell you more or less the same thing but from a different bunch of climate scientists.

Regarding your reference, Woodburner, I have skimmed through it but can't find anything of relevance. If you could copy and paste what is relevant I would be grateful. I'm too busy reading the real science to troll through all that.

[woodburner]

Can’t remember which topic it was in, but this one will do. Vtsnowedin mentioned somewhere that solar “farms� were put on otherwise useless land so it had no effect worth noting. Of course renewables are part of the mix that will mitigate the effects the use of fossil fuels will ottherwise have.

Sounds good, or does it? As I pointed out renewables are not without monetary cost, and environmental cost. Watch this, and see if you don’t learn something you didn’t already know.

Edit spelling of “without� ws “with�