Ignorance will do in many cases. In any case the idea that scientists are just doing it for the money is the same flawed logic of the ones opposing evolution, the take home lesson should be that while one can find evidence of science being twisted by ideology, the reality is that eventually science overcomes ideology as years of research give us evidence that tell us what side **was **correct.
It may take time, but there is another ignorant card being played here, the one that does not recognize the march of time and history. Just like in the case of evolution, biologists and researchers that accept the fact of evolution are the ones that get funding, not the creationists.
There is a lot of evidence and history that shows why the current state of funding in scientific circles is what it is now.
In reality the fake skeptical side would be just as appealing as creationists (many would see them as a fringe ideology when policy is on the line) if they did not have funding to keep their false request for equality going. It does not matter that they have no good evidence left, that is not the point of why they exist. And in other fronts there is the money used to elect denier politicians and to fund stink tanks, all that money is there not to make this fair among scientific circles, but to give the false impression that there is a controversy going on there and so, by golly, there should be a controversy.
There is then also an appeal to ignorance in the attempt to ignore all previous history and experiments made before; again, that funding argument just works on fumes only if we are willing to ignore history and the research that was made during almost more than 100 years of climate science.
It’s not there = I’ve never said it.
The data has been faked = I’ve never said it (I imagine that some data has been faked because simple probability dictates it, not a conspiracy)
1998 is the peak = The MetOffice says it.
I’ve never said "scientists are just doing it for the money " so I won’t comment.
One scientist changing side is not relevant.
" Just like in the case of evolution, biologists and researchers that accept the fact of evolution are the ones that get funding, not the creationists. " that means you agree with me that warmists are getting more money; thanks.
Why would NOAA be biased? Why would that bias persist throughout a very conservative, climate-science-denying administration lasting 8 years?
Why would US National Academy of Science be biased?
I admit that the UN IPCC had an institutional bias: it was set up for the purpose of spreading the AGW story. While that can explain bias in the IPCC’s report, it doesn’t explain bias in the two US institutions mentioned above.
Misleading, the Met office clarifies that the warming continues.
After bringing money into the discussion.
Once again ignoring history and simple logic, remember the main history on how increases on human made CO2 are harmful was not considered by scientists at large to be a problem, after more than 100 years of research we arrived to this:
**Simple logic should tell one that from originally not minding this issue at all to having most scientists being in favor shows that the vast majority of scientists changed sides already. **
And once this reply assumes that we should stay misleadingly just on that, no thanks. Once again, evidence supports one side, the side with no evidence is being artificially kept up in the headlines for reasons other than science.
At no point did I intend to imply that NAS or NOAA has bias (maybe they do in the same way of every large institution in the wolrd), I compared funding.
At no point did I claim otherwise.
SOme other guy did it.
Even if I did, it doesn’t mean that every mention of money is correctly atributed to me or that I must comment on it.
You post “a scpetic turns warmist”
I post “ok, it’s only one”
You post “CO2 is harmful”, I don’t follow.
**Simple logic should tell one that from originally not minding this issue at all to having most scientists being in favor shows that the vast majority of scientists changed sides already. **
I completely agree that my position is not sanctioned by most/all scientific bodies. I still think I’m right.
And once this reply assumes that we should stay misleadingly just on that, no thanks. Once again, evidence supports one side, the side with no evidence is being artificially kept up in the headlines for reasons other than science.
[/QUOTE]
The reply doesn’t assume anyhting. It clearly states.
When it reaches Katmandu most of us will start having second thoughts about our scepticism.
And that is just your opinion, as pointed many times before: you are not entitled to the facts.
Clearly it states just a misleading conclusion, there is really no trouble when the evidence supports something after 100 years: a subject that has been supported with evidence by that long is expected to get more funding. The side that does not should not get any nor it should exist as a movement. History reports that it exists because of some powerful interests. It is not important that some could say that the fake skeptics are getting less economical support, the point that was missed is that scientifically speaking they should get virtually nothing if science was the basis or reason for that funding.
AGW gets more money that sceptics, you are not entitled to your facts.
I agree that because AGW is the mainstream postion that it logically and rationally gets more funding.
After 100 years of research convincing virtually all researchers agree now on the reality of AGW you need to point at a changing scientific consensus in science that changed back again, not very likely as history shows that many times when scientific movements arrive to a new modern understanding changing requires even more extraordinary evidence to change back again to the old ways.
You do not have them. I only say that on some situations that is the case, but the misleading point is to assume that that is the case always.
With you, even if I agree with you, everything is misleading.
I do.
I’ll go point by point but I won’t go on a lot after that. My position on AGW is clear. My points are in red.
A dramatic rise in sea level. Global warming will cause a continuing sea level rise of an uncertain amount. The IPCC reports a range of 9 – 88 cm (3.5 – 34.6 inches) up to 2100, but further contributions are possible from glacier and ice sheet discharge from Greenland and Antarctica. This small rise would cause significant disruption to coastal communities. If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted this would lead to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft). Sea level rise has not changed in the last 200 years. The melting of the whole Greenland ice sheet is impossible
More active weather systems. More energy in the atmosphere will lead to more active weather systems, with more frequent and more violent storms. If the last 100 years are any proof, it is false. aggregated cyclone enegry has been flat for decades.
Disturbed rainfall patterns. Rainfall patterns will be significantly disrupted, with floods in some places and droughts in others. No evidence of major rain pattern changes in the last 100 years
Acidification of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water by reacting to make H2CO3 - carbonic acid, causing great damage to fish stocks and coral reefs. Note this is not a consequence of warming: it is a consequence of the forcing agent, CO2. To make matters worse, this acidification appears to have been an important factor in the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event — the most severe extinction Earth has ever known — and possibly every extinction other than the Cretaceous.[14] No important effect have been shown so far.
Tipping points/feedback loops. Multiple possibilities here. As glaciers disappear, the planet will not reflect as much solar radiation back into space, leading to more warming. When northern permafrost melts, the organic material will decompose and release methane, again leading to more warming. As the oceans warm, their ability to dissolve carbon dioxide decreases, and if ever reach a certain temperature, the methane stored under pressure on the seafloor will vaporize, leading to (you guessed it) more warming. tpping points cannot exist in any reasonable temp rise. temperatures and CO2 have been higher and no tipping point was reached.
Spread of tropical diseases. As northern latitudes become warmer, vectors that spread tropical diseases (such as mosquitoes or other organisms) will begin to encroach into new areas. Even with the last 100 years of warming this hasn’t been shown to be true.
Disruption of ocean currents. For example, the disruption of ocean currents could reduce the strength of the North Atlantic Drift that keeps Europe relatively warm for its latitude. “Could”, c’mon, they can do better than that. The drift is due mostly to the earths rotation. Salt concentration differences are minor.
Habitat loss or change faster than plants or animals can adapt. Mechanism such as species migration or changes in ecosystem boundaries often are slow, and in some cases could be slower than the speed of climate change. Some habitats may disappear completely: the loss of polar habitats will leave animals such as polar bears with no place to go. Polar bears have at least quadrupled their numbers in the last 40 years.
Loss of mountain glaciers and snowpack exacerbating summer droughts. Glaciers and snowpack act as natural reservoirs, for example releasing water that had fallen as snow several months later when summer arrives and snow melts. The loss of this natural storage mechanism will lead to floods in winter and droughts in the summer. This hasn’t been shown to be true. More temprerature could also mean more rain is deposited in glaciers.
Not all of these consequences are certain, and some may be mitigated. For example, whilst global warming might tend to promote the spread of tropical diseases, advances in medicine or control measures (insect spraying, swamp draining) could well counteract this, as has already happened during the industrial era for a number of previously common diseases.
Equally though, there will probably be many unanticipated additional — probably negative — consequences. Or maybe longer growing seasons will increase production
Because it is, just for starters it is misleading to imply that NOAA just has that budget for climate change issues alone.
But the whole red replies show also why, you need a big fat cite and not just “because I say so” to take those points seriously, because it has already been acknowledged that it does not matter what most scientists are reporting, just for starters:
That is not my problem, when there is no cite coming everyone else will do it too.
Your claim was that the “Sea level rise has not changed in the last 200 years” now you report that it was, I only need to show that even on simple items you are really clueless.
Of course, we agree completely on that part. I’m still right, but we completely agree on the rest.
Ok, I’ll give you that. I will alter my original phrasing it using your own graph (which will be turned into a misleading one soon enough, somehow)
Sea level rise has been, for the last 15 years, about 1/2 of what it was from 1875 to 1880.
[/QUOTE]
There will still be some demanding a couple of more meters, just in case.
Fighting with yourself then seems to be the end game
Repeating the point that you are using just comparing single steps in the upward escalator (That in context demonstrated that you were wrong, so at least I have to grant you points for finally learning something) does not make it sound like a smart point.
And, to clarify, those projections were based on the conservative estimates that omitted any acceleration from melted ice from places like Greenland, the fact that the loss is accelerating is indeed evidence that the conservative estimates are indeed that, conservative.
