Author Topic: Climate-Triggered NYC Disaster - New York on Ice, or Real (not faux) Climate Change  (Read 1232 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
The question that matter is how many scientists think that reducing human CO2 emissions rapidly is a useful response. When it comes to that question there is no 97% consensus - it is closer to 80%.

More importantly, 20% of scientists who dissent from the alarmist view is not an insignificant minority. It is certainly large enough to expect that their opinions be heard in the policy debate and people who try to prevent the dissenting opinions from being expressed are anti-science toletarians.
Good question. The answer is a question of economics and technology which are not fields where climate scientists have any special expertise so the number of climate scientists who think CO2 should be reduced is not something that should have any effect on policy decisions. The opinion of climate scientists only mean that economists and engineers should look the problem.

"the problem" you speak to: is not a problem you accept. As the denier you are, you steadfastly hold in your refusal to accept that anthropogenic sourced C02 is the principal causal tie to warming/climate change..... as the denier you are, you steadfastly hold in your refusal to, when challenged, state your understood alternative principal causal tie. Instead, you perpetually draw on your, "adapt only, no mitigation" charade; you perpetually draw on your "denigrating climate scientists" routine that presumes to favour "economists/engineers" to work to deploy problem resolutions in line with policy related decisions - again, all for a problem you don't accept in the first place.

your disingenuous nature is well understood/recognized:
- when pressed to respond to requests for details related to your "adapt only" posturing, you provide nothing other than to suggest adaptation is a localized per country concern... for global impacts that reflect upon borderless oceans/atmosphere - yeesh! Oh wait now; you also dropped a nugget (under the waldo's pressing scrutiny of your BS) that adaptation is a "futures concern" - that nothing needs to be initiated now/today. All of which follows the, "do nothing/delay at all costs", implicit position of deniers/fake skeptics.

- you continually natter on about a broad-based reference to "economists/engineers" overseeing enforcement/deployment of any policy decisions (those that might be under your undetermined/unqualified stated influence of those wascally "climate scientists"... you know, that body of world-wide scientists working in a myriad of disciplines within and peripheral to climate science proper). Of course, when the waldo pressed you to provide (rather recognize) the formal positions of recognized international/national bodies & organizations of economists and engineers, you resorted to one of your ready-goto fallbacks: you said something along the lines of why should you/one recognize the ideological and political positions of biased bodies/organizations... press me on this and I will find your exact quote!

citation request to align with your statement/claim that, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response"... you know, a response to a problem you refuse to accept in the first place.  It's also heeelarious to read you attempt to counter the consensus on the prevailing science with this narrowly aligned (claimed) percentage on problem response - heeelarious!  ;D
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 2 Disagree Disagree x 1 Winner Winner x 2 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List