[skinster]

[late]

[usermention=42221]

@B0ycey[/usermention] You are correct. The "trickle down" thing has been around a very long time and is bipartisan. It's also got nothing to do with SF. The Democrats love being rich, too.

A Democrats in CA have to do with this. It's their DA who refuses to prosecute them. It's their policies and bills(prop 47). Sorry, @late, but you can't blame the Republicans on this one.

Not that you have the ability, or inclination, but look at Reagan..

[late]

Patrick Moore

Koch guy that's been dead over a decade.

Be less pathetic.

[Godstud]

@late I know where it started, but it never ended after Reagan, despite the many Democrat leaders that followed. They benefited from it, as well.

[Pants-of-dog]

According to his Wikipedia page, Patrick Moore is still alive.

The 97% claim comes from a 2013 paper by Cook et al:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... ld.iop.org

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce.

….

Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

[late]

@late I know where it started, but it never ended after Reagan, despite the many Democrat leaders that followed. They benefited from it, as well.

Yes, there is corruption.

If you want to end the corruption, you have to support someone willing to fight it.

I supported Liz Warren.

[late]

According to his Wikipedia page, Patrick Moore is still alive.

The 97% claim comes from a 2013 paper by Cook et al:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... ld.iop.org

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce.

….

Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Consensus is a community decision. The climatology community has supported human caused change for about a quarter century, although there was never really any serious doubt. A couple years later, the rest of the scientific community added their support.

You can buy a LOT of BS with oil money, and they have.

[Godstud]

True, @late, but a consensus is really just an agreement on having the same opinion. If it's highly politicized, the opinion might not be based on science, alone.

Koch did pay tons to pervert the science(the government was complicit, as well). That's well known. At the same time, the current Carbon taxes and carbon footprint stuff is seeing support from the government, too. I don't think that the science is as established as we'd like to opine.

[skinster]

[Godstud]

Yes, CO2 is good for plant growth. This is well known.

What is also known is that millions of years ago the concentration of CO2 was about 10 times(4,000 ppm) what it was now(400 ppm), and the temperatures were 10C higher. Saying that the temperatures go up by 1C for every 10 ppm increase doesn't make any sense. Anyone can do the math and see this isn't true.

Note: Humans can survive at 4,000 ppm easily forever. They've tested submariners for months at 30,000+ ppm CO2 levels, and records no changes in health, intellect, or anything measurable.

[Pants-of-dog]

…..
Saying that the temperatures go up by 1C for every 10 ppm increase doesn't make any sense.

Considering the fact that the exact relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature increases is still very uncertain, it is highly doubtful that anyone has made this exact claim (except as a hypothesis).

The degree of uncertainty is described by the possible range of temperature increase from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is currently set at 1.5 degrees Centigrade to 4.5 degrees.

As you can see, this is a substantial range and shows that the climatology community does nit think there is a clear number like “1C for every 10 ppm”.

Note: Humans can survive at 4,000 ppm easily forever. They've tested submariners for months at 30,000+ ppm CO2 levels, and records no changes in health, intellect, or anything measurable.

The direct harm caused by CO2 is not a worry. For those of us who live in Edmonton or have loved ones who do (for example), the worry is the record wildfire smoke from the increased amount of wildfires, which causes many premature deaths from air pollutants.

For someone living in SE Asia, the main worry would be the increasing risk of flooding from sea level rise.

[skinster]

^ Yeah, they told us in school about 30 years ago that Bangladesh would disappear / be under water within 20 years.

As for wildfires, maybe the climate-doom-arsonists should stop setting fire to nature for no reason besides politics that they have to lie about and set fire about..

[Pants-of-dog]

^ Yeah, they told us in school about 30 years ago that Bangladesh would disappear / be under water within 20 years.

The ignorance of your grade school teachers is not a good reason to ignore the problems facing Bangladesh, nor should we do anything less than applaud the amazing efforts already put forth by the people of Bangladesh to mitigate these negative impacts.

As for wildfires, maybe the climate-doom-arsonists should stop setting fire to nature for no reason besides politics that they have to lie about and set fire about..

That article is not about the wildfires I am discussing. I am discussing central and southern Alberta, which is in Canada. It also does not support any claim that arsonists are driven by a climate doom agenda.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Einstein is known to be flawed. There are serious problems with energy-momentum localization in general relativity, but as nothing better has turned up and it does the job for all but the most obscure problems in cosmology, we all pretend it's hunky-dory.

And your point would be...?

[Truth To Power]

It has never faced a serious challenge.

That is of course just baldly false.

Indeed, in 1977, the National Academy of Sciences said we needed to start making changes to avoid the crisis we are in now.

No it didn't, and we are not in a crisis now.

[Truth To Power]

Koch guy that's been dead over a decade.

Wrong on both counts.

Be less pathetic.

[ingliz]

And your point would be...?

I was reminding you that Einstein is known to be incorrect.

[Truth To Power]

I was reminding you that Einstein is known to be incorrect.

And your point would be...?

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

It appeared to have slipped your mind.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

It appeared to have slipped your mind.

Or you were just bloviating.

I know where my money is.