[Pants-of-dog]

It wouldn't be because I was addressing an entirely different stupid objection. That was an explanation for why they would have to exaggerate the problem, why climate change is such a convenient crisis for the liberal elites is a separate question.

I've explained it repeatedly and you just refuse to address it. And I don't even have to assume, I know you got nothing but lame straw man bullshit. The only thing you can do is duck the issue and deny the obvious.

So you have no explanation, and I will now dismiss your argument as unsupported.

[blackjack21]

These people want to pretend that the scientists don't have personal and professional interests in hyping this shit, they pretend there are no institutional interests on the part of universities and government agencies, they pretend that the broader liberal establishment doesn't tie into to the academic establishment through grants and endowments, and they pretend the liberal establishment doesn't have an interest in massive regulatory expansion and the power to direct wealth transfer on a global scale. These people have to pretend so hard just to keep their bullshit aloft that they've lost touch with all reality and they're now as delusional as the most paranoid raving conspiratards.

Well, to sum their sentiments up more succinctly, it sounds a bit like this: "Vote for us, or the world is going to come to an end!" It really has gotten to be that level of crazy. I'd rather the world come to an end than be ruled by those fuck wits.

[noemon]

So to recap:

AGW is allegedly a conspiracy to get the US to ratify the Climate Change protocols(Kyoto, Paris Agreement) which it has refused to do for decades and still does.

It is allegedly a conspiracy to manufacture American consent against fossil fuels. And look at this great success:

Detroit Should Beware Making Gas-Guzzlers Great Again

Proof: "Look, some climatologists presented the data in a partisan way, their conclusions that Anthropogenic Global Warning is a reality were scientifically correct and sound, but who cares about that, right?"

[Sivad]

I'd rather the world come to an end than be ruled by those fuck wits.

If the choice is between liberal technocracy and climate change I'll take the climate change. We can see what the liberals have already done to the world so who in their right mind would give them more control over global development?

[Sivad]

So to recap:

AGW is allegedly a conspiracy to get the US to ratify the Climate Change protocols(Kyoto, Paris Agreement) which it has refused to do for decades and still does.

It is allegedly a conspiracy to manufacture American consent against fossil fuels. And look at this great success:

Detroit Should Beware Making Gas-Guzzlers Great Again

Proof: "Look, some climatologists presented the data in a partisan way, their conclusions that Anthropogenic Global Warning is a reality were scientifically correct and sound, but who cares about that, right?"

Your recap is an incoherent straw man.

[noemon]

Your recap is an incoherent straw man.

Your statement is insufficient, to claim a straw-man you will have to explain why it is so and in your case it is doubtful you will even bother because if you claim that these stuff were never claimed or implied, you will be arguing against your own position, so at best you will whine, cry and try to use nonsense to obfuscate the matter as much as possible in line with big-oil corporate babbittry.

[Negotiator]

I dont care what the CIA says. They are far from a neutral source.

Outside of the USA nobody (important) doubts the climate collapse.

For example theres about 30,000 experts on climate worldwide. Of these 30,000, about 30 doubt that the collapsing climate is not caused by human beings.

By the way, none of them doubt that its happening. That much is obvious.

And I would persume if for example the Koch brothers wouldnt spent around a billion dollars per year on nothing but propaganda that the climate collapse isnt going on, and the mainstream US media wouldnt fully support that absurd theory as well, the US population wouldnt be that dimwitted about the climate collapse either.

[Sivad]

Outside of the USA nobody (important) doubts the climate collapse.

Total bullshit. There are many prominent senior climate scientists from outside the US who are skeptical of the establishment paradigm.

For example theres about 30,000 experts on climate worldwide. Of these 30,000, about 30 doubt that the collapsing climate is not caused by human beings.

Also total bullshit. There is no consensus, the surveys show that many many climate experts are skeptical of the alarmist paradigm.

[Godstud]

@Sivad The "alarmist paradigm" is political, but the science is sound.

The rest of your anti-science crap is simply political bullshit.


Bullshit
transitive verb
bull·​shit | \ ˈbu̇l-ˌshit also ˈbəl-
- to talk nonsense to especially with the intention of deceiving or misleading

[Pants-of-dog]

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 1/4/048002

Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Also:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change

[Sivad]

This a physicist talking about physics but the same dynamic holds across all fields of science and climate science is no exception:

Sabine Hossenfelder: getting papers published and certainly the ability to publish a lot of papers makes that look more important.

Robert Wright: yeah well that is a fundamental incentive for most working scientists right? and you think in some ways a corrupting one?

Sabine Hossenfelder: Yeah.

Robert Wright: yeah because for one thing it leads people to buy into the established model, it's like once string theory is a cool thing and they're in and it's getting funded and stuff then there's an incentive to buy into that?

Sabine Hossenfelder: yeah that's a very strong incentive because you need to get money, you need to have a position from it, so in the fields where people have the money you will get a position. I mean it's as simple as this, people go where money goes, money goes where people go, so you get this feedback loop where you get all of this research and these are really hard to get rid of once they have reached a certain size.

the above exchange starts @ 24:06

[Pants-of-dog]

How does that make ACC a hoax?

[Sivad]

97% consensus

Here's an opinion survey of 651 climate scientists conducted in 2015:
https://www.hzg.de/imperia/md/content/h ... 2016_2.pdf
How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes? (v007)
not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very much


So about 6% of climate scientists are very skeptical, 21% are unsure, and 73% are confident or very confident. That's not a consensus and it's certainly not a 97% consensus.

When you actually talk to scientists rather than doing bogus analysis of abstracts you come away with a very different picture.

[Sivad]

I wish there was a 97% consensus because a 97% consensus on a subject as complex and poorly understood as the Earth's climate would be clear evidence that climate science is a severely dysfunctional field. If the alarmists had put any real thought into what a 97% consensus would imply about the field of climate science they never would have manufactured that bogus statistic because when properly understood in context it really doesn't help their case. Although the field has been substantially corrupted by outside interests and internal politics it hasn't been compromised to that extent that 97% of climate scientists are marching in lockstep with the official paradigm.

[Pants-of-dog]

If your only evidence for lack of consensus shows that more than 80% of climatologists agree with ACC theory, the discussion is over.

[Sivad]

If your only evidence for lack of consensus shows that more than 80% of climatologists agree with ACC theory, the discussion is over.

Not really because a good bulk of that 80% is due to outside influences and internal politics and the 20% can't just be ignored, that would be extremely dishonest.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you have any evidence for your vague accusations, go ahead,

[Prosthetic Conscience]

So about 6% of climate scientists are very skeptical, 21% are unsure, and 73% are confident or very confident. That's not a consensus and it's certainly not a 97% consensus.

Oh, so answers 1 to 3 count as "very skeptical", 4 and 5 "unsure", 6 "confident", and only "very confident", do they? That's a dodgy sleight of hand there. If you're going to put adjectives on a numerical scale, at least have the honesty to be symmetrical. If 1 to 3 are all "very skeptical", then we'll call 5 to 7 "very confident". That's 88%.

What we actually have there is 2% "not at all", 48% "very much", and others somewhere in between. Which means 98% have some opinion that most is anthropogenic.

[Sivad]

Oh, so answers 1 to 3 count as "very skeptical", 4 and 5 "unsure", 6 "confident", and only "very confident", do they? That's a dodgy sleight of hand there. If you're going to put adjectives on a numerical scale, at least have the honesty to be symmetrical. If 1 to 3 are all "very skeptical", then we'll call 5 to 7 "very confident". That's 88%.

What we actually have there is 2% "not at all", 48% "very much", and others somewhere in between. Which means 98% have some opinion that most is anthropogenic.

There's nothing dodgy in that, a 5 out of 7 is only like a 70% probability, that might be high confidence for a bar bet but in science it means the evidence isn't all that compelling. So how can there be an honest consensus when there's that much room for doubt?

And it's pretty rich for a guy that hypes the bogus 97% consensus claim to be calling anything "dodgy". 97% isn't just dodgy, it's a total fraud.

[noemon]

That graph shows 5.5% skeptical, 7% agreed and 88% certain.

In a yes or no question that is actually over 95% yes and only 2% definite noes.

The err does not go to the negative in any question. Even the scale itself is meant to obfuscate just like I predicted you would do and even this obfuscation is totally laughable as the numbers are overwhelmingly against your position.