Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

[blackbird]

There is no empirical science that proves man is causing global warming or climate change.  It is all supposition, hearsay, or speculation, which is not science.

[blackbird]

34 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

A belief you have admitted isn't based on any science or data,

Really?  What I said is based on data available on the internet through search engines.  The simple facts are on various websites.  The total amount of CO2 man emits is a tiny fraction of the amount of natural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  That is a well known fact.  You can do some searching and find the figures yourself.

Another fact is the amount of CO2 mankind emits is known.  Canada emits 1.5% of the mankind's total emissions. You can easily verify that on the internet yourself.

These simple fact lead me to the opinion:

1.  Mankind is not emitting enough greenhouse gas in the form of fossil emissions to have any real effect on global warming or climate change.  That is an opinion only.

2.  Canada's emissions of 1.5% of mankind's is miniscule and no matter what Canada does, it is unlikely to have any impact on mankind's total emissions.  Therefore we are wasting our resources, energy, and time on "fighting pollution" as Trudeau claims.

Instead of insulting people on here, you need to grow up and converse in a sane manner.

[Black Dog]

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Since you are so well-informed, what is the underlying scientific proof that man is causing climate change?  Or where is the proof the minute amount of man-made CO2 is causing global warming? 

I have not seen it.  Speculation is not proof.  Neither are the rantings of Greta Thunberg, Trudeau, or any politician.

You're right dude the massive increase in atmospheric CO2, a potent GHG, and corresponding increase in global temperatures over the last 100 years is just a coinkydink.

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. Since you are so well-informed, what is the underlying scientific proof that man is causing climate change?  Or where is the proof the minute amount of man-made CO2 is causing global warming? 

 

1. How about a study ABOUT the studies ?  It's 20 years old but showed that consensus was achieved that long ago.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=c38660c58a91b26edfb6a7d85fa41e68b2b5e472

Cited 435 times by other studies.

[Black Dog]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Really?  What I said is based on data available on the internet through search engines.  The simple facts are on various websites.  The total amount of CO2 man emits is a tiny fraction of the amount of natural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  That is a well known fact.  You can do some searching and find the figures yourself.

Another fact is the amount of CO2 mankind emits is known.  Canada emits 1.5% of the mankind's total emissions. You can easily verify that on the internet yourself.

These simple fact lead me to the opinion:

1.  Mankind is not emitting enough greenhouse gas in the form of fossil emissions to have any real effect on global warming or climate change.  That is an opinion only.

2.  Canada's emissions of 1.5% of mankind's is miniscule and no matter what Canada does, it is unlikely to have any impact on mankind's total emissions.  Therefore we are wasting our resources, energy, and time on "fighting pollution" as Trudeau claims.

Instead of insulting people on here, you need to grow up and converse in a sane manner.

1. The fact that the amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is a relatively low percentage of total is totally irrelevant. 

2. Canada's per capita emissions are among the highest in the world and there's no compelling argument for not doing out part to reduce that.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. How about a study ABOUT the studies ?  It's 20 years old but showed that consensus was achieved that long ago.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=c38660c58a91b26edfb6a7d85fa41e68b2b5e472

Cited 435 times by other studies.

Studies that have no underlying empirical proof are not scientific proof.

Studies citing other studies that have no proof are not proof either.

Repeating the same thing over 435 times doesn't prove anything.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

1. The fact that the amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is a relatively low percentage of total is totally irrelevant. 

2. Canada's per capita emissions are among the highest in the world and there's no compelling argument for not doing out part to reduce that.

1.  Your opinion only with no evidence or proof of anything.

2.  Per capita emissions prove nothing.  It is the actual total emissions of each country that we use to compare Canada against other countries.  Canada's is only 1.5% of mankind's total emissions.

Canada has a large land mass and a smaller population and uses more fossil fuels because of the cold climate.  We must travel greater distances and use more fossil fuels to heat our homes in the colder climate than much of the rest of the world.  

Much of the rest of the world are in poverty and many people do not have cars, houses, etc. that Canadians have.  So talking about per capita is meaningless.  Of course Canadians use more.  That doesn't mean we need to suffer more or pay for carbon taxes.  Man cannot control the climate.

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Studies that have no underlying empirical proof are not scientific proof.

Studies citing other studies that have no proof are not proof either.

Repeating the same thing over 435 times doesn't prove anything.

LOL says the guy who won't shut up about "the total amount of CO2 man emits is a tiny fraction of the amount of natural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

[Black Dog]

Just now, blackbird said:

1.  Your opinion only with no evidence or proof of anything.

It's pretty clear you have no idea what "proof" and "evidence" mean. 

Quote

 

2.  Per capita emissions prove nothing.  It is the actual total emissions of each country that we use to compare Canada against other countries.  Canada's is only 1.5% of mankind's total emissions.

Canada has a large land mass and a smaller population and uses more fossil fuels because of the cold climate.  We must travel greater distances and use more fossil fuels to heat our homes in the colder climate than much of the rest of the world.  

Much of the rest of the world are in poverty and many people do not have cars, houses, etc. that Canadians have.  So talking about per capita is meaningless.  Of course Canadians use more.  That doesn't mean we need to suffer more or pay for carbon taxes.  Man cannot control the climate.

 

None of that is an argument for not reducing our carbon output especially since it's pretty obvious that anthropomorphic climate change is real. "Man cannot control climate" is a false statement and last I checked, lying was a sin.

 

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Studies that have no underlying empirical proof are not scientific proof.

Studies citing other studies that have no proof are not proof either.

Repeating the same thing over 435 times doesn't prove anything.

It's a survey of scientists.  Here's a more recent one: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774

Published by an LSU scientist.  Abstract: 

 

Quote

We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity.

So, it's not evidence of climate change, no.   The evidence is in the papers such as MBH99 (Temperature reconstruction) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999gl900070 and cited by 2733 other papers.  CO2 monitoring is done by NASA https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ 

And the Greenhouse Effect is known, ergo - if you increase the amount of CO2 it increases temperature in the atmosphere.

It's pretty much a slam-dunk which is why 100% of climate scientists now buy into it.  Although that wasn't the case 20 years ago so it seems that some of them have been convinced.

If you have an alternative theory, please publish it.  Don't post a video of someone in a church basement in Iowa telling a bunch of conspiracy folks that the scientists are "idi0ts" etc.

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Since you are so well-informed, what is the underlying scientific proof that man is causing climate change?  Or where is the proof the minute amount of man-made CO2 is causing global warming? 

I have not seen it.  Speculation is not proof.  Neither are the rantings of Greta Thunberg, Trudeau, or any politician.

The underlying scientific proof is in the steady measurable increase in CO2 levels that matches the enormous amount of fossil fuels burned since the start of the industrial age.

Despite all attempts to find other causes this is why the scientific consensus is so vast and enduring and unequivocal. This is not speculation it is a fact.

 

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I see....  Is there a paper I can look at ?  I googled and found lots of examples of climate change affecting phytoplankton but not the other way.

I imagine there are more than a few.   You could start by contacting Dr. Howard Dryden - the man behind the goes website and a oceanic scientist with academic credentials and professional accomplishments in water treatment far beyond almost any mere mortal.   While he stands WAY out in front, he is hardly alone in his understanding of these issues.

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

It's pretty clear you have no idea what "proof" and "evidence" mean. 

None of that is an argument for not reducing our carbon output especially since it's pretty obvious that anthropomorphic climate change is real. "Man cannot control climate" is a false statement and last I checked, lying was a sin.

 

Nobody can prove man changes the climate or can control it.  You don't believe in God or the Bible so your claim about sin is a fraud.  You wouldn't know what it is.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's a survey of scientists.  Here's a more recent one: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774

Published by an LSU scientist.  Abstract: 

 

So, it's not evidence of climate change, no.   The evidence is in the papers such as MBH99 (Temperature reconstruction) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999gl900070 and cited by 2733 other papers.  CO2 monitoring is done by NASA https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ 

And the Greenhouse Effect is known, ergo - if you increase the amount of CO2 it increases temperature in the atmosphere.

It's pretty much a slam-dunk which is why 100% of climate scientists now buy into it.  Although that wasn't the case 20 years ago so it seems that some of them have been convinced.

If you have an alternative theory, please publish it.  Don't post a video of someone in a church basement in Iowa telling a bunch of conspiracy folks that the scientists are "idi0ts" etc.

If it is a "slam dunk" as you say, then you should be able to describe what the underlying proof is.   I shouldn't have to search through a mass of articles you link to see the actual proof. If you have the proof, you should be able to state it in a few sentences.  So go ahead.

If you don't know the proof, you should not be repeating the great lie and claiming something is a fact.

We know you are great at giving links with massive amounts of writings and reports, but if there is no actual proof in it all, it still does not resolve the matter one way or another.  You love to try to appear to be trusting "cites" and references, but you don't actually give a brief statement that describes the proof.  So the whole thing is an exercise in futility.

As I said many times, assumptions are not proof.

Edited April 9 by blackbird

[blackbird]

50 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The underlying scientific proof is in the steady measurable increase in CO2 levels that matches the enormous amount of fossil fuels burned since the start of the industrial age.

Despite all attempts to find other causes this is why the scientific consensus is so vast and enduring and unequivocal. This is not speculation it is a fact.

 

That is not proof of anything.  A claim that human CO2 increased with fossil fuels does not prove it is causing man-made global warming.  You don't appear to understand the difference between speculation and empirical science.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's pretty much a slam-dunk which is why 100% of climate scientists now buy into it. 

Anyone can do a search and come up with countless websites that say this and that about it, but why do you believe in man-made climate change?  What is the actual proof in your own words that would explain why you believe in it?  We are talking about what you believe and why.  Not about what countless other websites claim.

Edited April 9 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you have an alternative theory, please publish it.

I don't have to publish anything.  It is you and others who blame man for global warming and put carbon taxes, etc. on me.  You are forcing me to pay for what you claim.  I am not taxing you for what I believe.  So the onus is on you to prove man is causing climate change.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You don't appear to understand the difference between speculation and empirical science.

You seem to think empirical means something other than direct observation. Perhaps you have it mixed up with empire.

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Nobody can prove man changes the climate or can control it.  You don't believe in God or the Bible so your claim about sin is a fraud.  You wouldn't know what it is.

The preponderance of evidence supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change, cope and seethe.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

That is not proof of anything.  A claim that human CO2 increased with fossil fuels does not prove it is causing man-made global warming.  You don't appear to understand the difference between speculation and empirical science.

This is stupid but it's extra stupid coming from a guy who thinks there's definitive proof of the existence of God. Straight up mental illness at work here.

[herbie]

Speculative science, used to be a fan. Larry Niven, Bradbury, Harlan Ellison, etc. That was a long time ago and I never got so freaking senile I confused it as a part of actual science.

Many people these days actually believe fiction rather than reality. Too much breathing lead from car fumes and exposure to advertising most likely.

[blackbird]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You seem to think empirical means something other than direct observation. Perhaps you have it mixed up with empire.

"Empirical evidence, information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or experimentation that may be used to confirm or disconfirm a scientific theory or to help justify, or establish as reasonable, a person’s belief in a given proposition. "

Empirical evidence | Definition, Examples, Evidentialism, Foundationalism, & Facts | Britannica

Man-made global warming has not been verified by observation or experimentation.  

19 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

The preponderance of evidence supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change, cope and seethe.

This is stupid but it's extra stupid coming from a guy who thinks there's definitive proof of the existence of God. Straight up mental illness at work here.

 Those comments are extra stupid and a sign of mental illness.

Edited April 9 by blackbird

[blackbird]

If I take an object and let it go in the air, it falls to the ground because of gravity. 

That may be empirical evidence that gravity pulls things downward toward the earth.  It is empirical evidence because we can see it happen and know it to be true.

If I claim that everyone emitting fossil fuels causes global warming, but have no proof, then that is not empirical evidence.  Just saying so is not evidence.

If I do an experiment in a lab that demonstrates somehow that CO2 traps heat, then that might be evidence that CO2 traps heat in that experiment.   But it does not prove that man releasing CO2 into the atmosphere causes global warming.  The two occurrences are not the same thing.

Edited April 9 by blackbird

[blackbird]

Man does not know everything or as much as he thinks he knows.

Take gravity for instance.  What is gravity?  Does anyone really know?  

There appears to be an invisible force that causes things to fall toward earth.  But we cannot see that force and we cannot block it with any kind of shield or object.  Yet it exists.

That is kind of like God in the sense we don't see him directly.  But we can see his handiwork in the complex creation.

So why do people often deny God is, but they take gravity for granted even though they cannot see it?

Why do people assume man causes climate change?  There is no proof and it is one of those things that appears to be impossible to prove.

The evidence for God is all around us, yet many people do not believe God created it, but these same people are willing to believe man causes excessive climate change even though there is no clear evidence or proof.

Edited April 9 by blackbird

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Man does not know everything or as much as he thinks he knows.

Take gravity for instance.  What is gravity?  Does anyone really know?  

There appears to be an invisible force that causes things to fall toward earth.  But we cannot see that force and we cannot block it with any kind of shield or object.  Yet it exists.

That is kind of like God in the sense we don't see him directly.  But we can see his handiwork in the complex creation.

So why do people often deny God is, but they take gravity for granted even though they cannot see it?

Why do people assume man causes climate change?  There is no proof and it is one of those things that appears to be impossible to prove.

The evidence for God is all around us, yet many people do not believe God created it, but these same people are willing to believe man causes excessive climate change even though there is no clear evidence or proof.

And some people just don't want to know anything. There is a lot more empirical evidence of man caused warming than there is for some sort of supreme being.s

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Man-made global warming has not been verified by observation or experimentation.  

Prove it. Millions of peer reviewed scientists say otherwise.

I guess when it comes to judging the capacity of our peers, non-scientists in our case, one of the things we check is the past veracity of the peer in question. You have demonstrated, empirically on the question of empiricism especially, to have a capacity for accepting a quality of evidence that is so far below speculation that it verges on pure fantasy.

Unfortunately for the human race and the planet, there are far to many people like you in positions of power and influence trumping evidence and science with your fantasies. They've led us down an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

Good job. You must be so proud.

Edited April 9 by eyeball