No... The U.S. has lower percentage umber of cold related deaths because 99.99% of the population has access to adequate housing and heating in the winter months. Heat related deaths have been steady over a long period of time with spikes in some individual years.
What a ridiculous thing to say. By that token ALL surveys are hypothesis. Results drawn from citation data is hardly inferring hypothesis. Also I think I'll take what is science and fact today in preference to your 25 odd years into the future crystal ball gazing guesses , thanks all the same
Not at all. I suggest you read more carefully what I said. Skepticism is fine, essential to the scientific process. The extent to which damage to the climate has or is going to take place, is where legitimate debate lies. Where valid skepticism is useful. Trying to create controversy toward the basic fact of AGW and against valid skepticism is what Iâm talking about. People with PhD and Master degrees should perhaps be distinguishing between what is scientific fact (co2 does warm the globe and man made co2 is remaining in the atmosphere over and above that being absorbed naturally and therefore blindingly obvious by that alone AGW is made fact) and what is yet to be resolved (what, if any, degree of change to the climate because of AGW has , is going to , or is not possible to happen). If youâre advocating constructive skepticism, a little skepticism about AGW skepticism would be in order.
Its a fact that NASA recently stated Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are "natural thermostatsâ âWhen the upper atmosphere (or âthermosphereâ) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.â Said James Russell a scientist for NASA... after showing the thermosphere light up after a recent solar event. Therefore ... We do not know if adding man made CO2 to our very complex and dynamic system causes net warming. Because just as greenhouse gases keep the earth from getting too cold... they also prevent the earth from getting too warm. So man made warming is far from a scientific fact. (I grant you that cutting down rain forests and urbanization would seem to cause warming... but science does not even know if we are warming outside natural variability) It is possible adding more co2 at this stage in our warming and cooling cycle would block more warming energy or dissipate more energy than it would keep in. Science does not have robust enough models on this subject. So the truth is science does not know. Which is why only about 40 of the 11000 papers stated man causes most of the warming and why the 97 percent number is total bullshit.
That is a known and understood scientific process. It does not directly influence the science of global warming. I suggest you do more research. However, dealing with that fact then. As a fact, Co2 is a natural thermostat. So pumping more of it, unnaturally, into the atmosphere is not going to be a particularly good idea is it. Especially as what you have said is a complex and dynamic system within which science doesn't have all the anwers yet. It is at the very least problematic. But if you are dealing with fact, you must realize 40% of man made co2 emmisions are not being absorbed by natural process. That too is a fact. Left in the atmosphere and moreover added to every year, it is then, now an unnatural and additional thermostat to those "natural thermostats". You've already said scientific models on the subject are not robust enough. Making guesses and assertions based upon no recognized scientific model like that is one step worse. Wing and a prayer legacy then for your children and future generations is it? Let's pump more co2 into the atmophere because the climate might be naturally warming or cooling and AGW (of all things) might stop that.. Really!? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107....." total bullshit". Yeah right Co2 is a greenhouse gas. It's called that for a reason. It's a fact it warms the atmosphere. Artificially pumping more of the warming stuff into the atmosphere on such a scale that it sits there but won't further warm the atmosphere, is the argument for denying AGW is a fact? Like I say, AGW deniers / flat earth/ birthers......... pretty much fitting in the same slot.
Your main attack was stupid as can be. Because I agree, if you do not know what pollution is doing to the the atmosphere pumping more of into the atmosphere is not a good idea. As a conservative I believe we should conserve nature for our children as well. What I object to is people like you making unsupported assumptions and then acting like its proven science. regarding... 97% vs reality. here is a very recently peer reviewed counter to your misinformation. --- David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Abstract Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007â2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
My main attack is stupid as can be because you agree with it. Coming from you that figures. But if you were at all honest, wouldn't you admit you don't even understand what my 'main attack' is? AGW is not even the same thing as climate change. Natural global warming is a fact. In the same way AGW is a fact; co2 will warm the atmosphere no matter its origin. ACC (anthropic climate change) is the logical scientifically based anticipated outcome from natural global warming and anthropic global warming. A similar but far more scientific approach to your own admittance that - if you don't know what pollution is doing to the atmosphere pumping more of it into the atmosphere is not a good idea - only with actual facts and figures. 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data showing 97% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed support the tenets of ACC (anthropic climate change) is not the 97% Doran survey. Your politics are another separate issue and probably another reason why you are always so confused. If you do so object to people making unsupported assumptions and then acting like its proven science, then you should start by objecting against yourself.