I’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position that water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn’t.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
And that is, for most people where is stands. Unable to actually understand the issues, they do the 'scholar' thing and read up what *other* people, who they believe *do* know what they are talking about, have written. And the case then becomes how many people can be persuaded to *believe* the 'experts' (99% of all scientists etc). And how they are then persuaded to defend their ignorance by referring to 'the expert source'.
I.e. there are those who think they can trust 'experts' and those who can think...
Spot on.
We now have teenagers and even younger claiming that their mental health is being negatively affected by the current narrative of climate change, Nut Zero, renewables, and the rest.
Well I can relate to that. News is dominated by brexit, climate change, gender politics and you have to go to GB news to get coverage on the real issues that are affecting people - destruction of British society by left wing ideological policies including unlimited immigration and renewable energy and a complete amnesty on all crimes except idealogical ones.
And government generated poverty.
That has been explained to you many times. You need to deal with the explanation *before* looking for justification.
Well, yes, I have a reasonable amount of faith in proper scientists. As opposed to anonymous social media pundits who conceal their qualifications, data, and theoretical ideas, while managing to commit to a position. So we do agree on that.
*All* news media is biased, it is necessary to view a wide range and then guess who, if anyone, is telling the truth, and to what degree.
I have never concealed my qualifications
I have never concealed my data or theoretical position either
The question on this case can be expressed simply.
The claim is that water vapour does not 'cause' climate change but
*amplifies* temperature change *caused by CO2*.But does *not* amplify temperature change caused by *anything else*.
E.g volcanic eruptions.
If you cannot see the logical flaws in that position then there is little point discussing this any further.
This isn't about data, or models or theories, its about *logical consistency* in the assumptions.
That are simply absent.
Well of course BUT there is some that is biased in favour of what people want to know about and there is some that is biased towards what the media organisation *wants* you to 'know about'
GB News is currently the countries favourite news program, for what that's worth...
...not that that is being reported in the BBC or the guardian or.... :-)
And how do you define ‘proper scientists’?
“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties”.HTH
Yuo. Therein lies the problem. Science is *supposed* to be validated by reliable predictive ability, b not what experts say... but *nothing* that has been predicted by 'climate change' has become true.
E3evne if modern warming exists, there is ultimately no strong evidence that its *solely* down to CO2
+1
I've not noticed. But then I concede that point as you seem to be saying qualifications aren't needed beyond basic numeracy. I say they are, and we'll just have to differ on that.
You mean your 2012 paper? If so, how do you think it would be received if you presented it as current thinking?
Volcanic eruptions are not caused by humans (so far as I know), so are unlikely to feature as a central point in a discussion of anthropogenic climate change. It's the direct influence of humans that's under discussion. Not volcanoes. Or indeed meteorites.
That's not to say natural phenomena can have devasting consequences on climate. Ask the dinosaurs. This is a discussion about human influence, and the direct impact humans have on climate.
Well, it makes sense to me.
While there's a lot of overlap, I differentiate between natural ('physical world') and social scientists. But to answer your question in the context of this discussion:
Scientists systematically study the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis to gain knowledge and understanding. They use the scientific method to investigate phenomena, test hypotheses, and draw evidence-based conclusions.
Key characteristics of scientists include:
- They use established research methods and principles for systematic inquiry.
- They collect and analyse data objectively (although that is contestable), form hypotheses, design experiments, and draw conclusions based on evidence.
- They conduct research in laboratories, fields, or through theoretical modelling and analysis.
- They document findings, share results, and build upon previous research.
- They often teach, advise on policy matters, or apply their expertise to solve practical problems.
While many scientists have formal education and work in academic or research institutions, the defining feature is their methodical, evidence-based approach to understanding the world, rather than any particular degree or job title.
And to understand climate, I would suggest that you'd need to be a scientist. I don't, I'm not, so I'm led by the findings of scientists.
Oh the irony!
Ahem, *can't*.
In article snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, snipped-for-privacy@mail.com says... <snip>
position that
US Department of Energy report, 'A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate', challenges central claims, data handling and motivations behind mainstream climate science and policy. It asserts:
- CO2 has direct environmental benefits.
- Climate models consistently overestimate warming.
- No US long-term upward trend in "extreme weather".
- Ocean acidification fears exaggerated.
- U.S. emission reductions will have negligible impact on global climate.
Can someone tell Ed that his $cience isn't settled?
Link:
and more applause, from me!
The way you manage to completely evade any evidence of thinking is remarkable.
I guess you aren't a scientist, engineer or logician then
>
Which ones though, the ones that maintain there is a crisis or the ones that do not?
Now *that* is ironic.
Keep in mind that the predictions made below include those by academics, PhDs, and Professors, while asking yourself why you weren’t led by them:
Top 10 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Failed
Environmental freaks have warned of global apocalypse for decades
By Andrew Stiles March 6, 2025
It’s been almost six years since the delinquent child activist Greta Thunberg promoted a so-called scientist’s warning that “climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels” by 2023.
The scientist in question, Harvard University professor James Anderson, also predicted “there will be no floating ice remaining” in the Arctic Ocean by 2022 absent a “Marshall Plan-style endeavor in which all of the world takes extreme measures to transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years.”
That didn’t happen, but climate activists are still warning that the Arctic could be ice-free at some point between 2035 and 2067.
Not surprisingly, there is a long history—dating back to the 1970s—of so-called climate scientists and government bureaucrats making catastrophic predictions about the environment that never materialized. Here are 10 of the most egregious examples. Enjoy!
1) In 1970, S. Dillon Ripley [PhD] a wildlife conservationist who served as secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, warned that 75 percent to 80 percent of species would be extinct by 1995. Wrong.2) In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist and *professor* at the University of California, Davis, warned that “there won’t be any more crude oil,” that “none of our land will be usable” for agriculture, and the world would be
11 degrees colder by the year 2000. False.3) In 1970, biologist Paul Ehrlich [Professor] at Stanford University warned that by the end of the decade up to 200 million people would die each year from starvation due to overpopulation, life expectancy would plummet to 42 years, and all ocean life would perish. Extremely false.
4) In 1970, Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, predicted that “world population will outrun food supplies” and “the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine” by the year 2000. Didn’t happen.5) In 1971, Dr. S. I. Rasool, an atmospheric scientist at NASA, predicted the coming of a “new ice age” within 50 years. Incorrect.
6) In 1975, [Professor] Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, warned that 90 percent of tropical rainforests and 50 percent of species would disappear within 30 years. Erroneous.7) In 1988, Hussein Shihab, environmental affairs director of the Maldives, warned that his island nation would be completely underwater within 30 years, which wouldn’t even matter because experts also predicted the Maldives would run out of drinking water by 1992. False.
8) In 2004, a Pentagon analysis warned of global anarchy due to climate change. Major European cities would be underwater by 2020, at which point Britain would suffer from a “Siberian” climate. Extremely false.9) In 2008, Bob Woodruff of ABC News hosted a two-hour climate change special warning that New York City could be underwater by 2015, among other apocalyptic predictions. Didn’t happen.
10) In 2009, former vice president and climate activist Al Gore predicted the Arctic Ocean would have no ice by 2014, which is the same thing Greta Thunberg said would happen by 2022. Nope.
"We fact-checked the Trump administration’s climate report" "Scientists say the report cherry-picks key data and misrepresents the state of climate research."
Thomas Prufer
Well it's the Washington Post. Pretty much owned by the GreenBlob
Who have been cherry-picking key data and misrepresenting the state of climate research for decades. Along with the NYT.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required