Skeptics are winning: “The carbon market is dead”

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Reality is its own support. Too bad you cannot understand reality. It is what is there when YOU stop 'believing' in it.
The odd thing is how many times the 'denial' crowd claim 'victory'. The scientists don't even see this as 'us vs them',but simple a matter of documenting what is real.

Yes, the scientist are documenting what is real and the number of documents is growning that point out that global warming is a natual event.

It is ironic that you talk about others not being able to understand reality when your unable to understand it.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Reality is its own support.

Correct.

NoFactAllHype wrote:

Too bad you cannot understand reality.

Pot kettle, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

NoFactAllHype wrote:

It is what is there when YOU stop 'believing' in it.

When will you stop 'believing' the impossible, that CO2 can be a thermal pollutant?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Reality is its own support. Too bad you cannot understand reality. It is what is there when YOU stop 'believing' in it.
The odd thing is how many times the 'denial' crowd claim 'victory'. The scientists don't even see this as 'us vs them',but simple a matter of documenting what is real.

Ah yes, reality.

Reality is you can get people to give up a portion of their disposable income based on consensus. If the economy is good and the amount doesn't really impact the family unit negatively, then consensus is good enough.

When you ask people to agree to a tax that requires lifestyle changes, you had better have more than consensus.

Consensus is all you've got.

These are the fundamental conclusions based on the consensus of evidence about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased
concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our
atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington
does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration
of these gases over the last century is due
to human activities, especially the burning of
fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in
changing Earth’s climate, but are now being
overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many
other climatic patterns to change at speeds
unprecedented in modern times, including
increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations
in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations
of carbon dioxide are making the
oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex
climate changes threatens coastal communities
and cities, our food and water supplies,
marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests,
high mountain environments, and far more.

SpaceBlues wrote:

These are the fundamental conclusions based on the consensus of evidence about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased
concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our
atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington
does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration
of these gases over the last century is due
to human activities, especially the burning of
fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in
changing Earth’s climate, but are now being
overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many
other climatic patterns to change at speeds
unprecedented in modern times, including
increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations
in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations
of carbon dioxide are making the
oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex
climate changes threatens coastal communities
and cities, our food and water supplies,
marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests,
high mountain environments, and far more.

You cut and pasted this same text in other forums. Your inability to defend it has made it obvious that you do not even understand it. I guess thats all we can expect from you, just more and more Spaceblues spam.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah yes, reality.

Yes. Reality. I will try to help you get aquainted with it.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Reality is you can get people to give up a portion of their disposable income based on consensus.

Nope. That is politics (more specifically Democracy). If the public demands clean water enough to pay for clear air and water laws, then they "give up a portion of their disposable income based on consensus". But that is politics, not reality.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
If the economy is good and the amount doesn't really impact the family unit negatively, then consensus is good enough.

Well, Democracy says it is good enough if the people vote for it (consensus) regardless of whether the economy is booming or not, and regardless of whether it is cheap or a major cost. But that is politics, not reality.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
When you ask people to agree to a tax that requires lifestyle changes, you had better have more than consensus.

Nope. If the majority vote for austerity measures, then the minority are just going to have to live with it. That is the point of 'majority wins'. But that is politics, not reality.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Consensus is all you've got.

Consensus is not needed. Bishop Berkeley didn't ask anyone elses opinion on whether the rock he stubbed his toe on was real. But with complicated facts such as AGW or deep science, you want a consensus of the experts if you are going to have confidence that the science has reached a conclusion. And 97% of the relevant scientists is a very strong mandate for AGW theory to be correct. That is also reality.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
You cut and pasted this same text in other forums.

You want reality to change for each post???

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. Reality. I will try to help you get aquainted with it.
<quoted text>
Nope. That is politics (more specifically Democracy). If the public demands clean water enough to pay for clear air and water laws, then they "give up a portion of their disposable income based on consensus". But that is politics, not reality.
<quoted text>
Well, Democracy says it is good enough if the people vote for it (consensus) regardless of whether the economy is booming or not, and regardless of whether it is cheap or a major cost. But that is politics, not reality.
<quoted text>
Nope. If the majority vote for austerity measures, then the minority are just going to have to live with it. That is the point of 'majority wins'. But that is politics, not reality.
<quoted text>
Consensus is not needed. Bishop Berkeley didn't ask anyone elses opinion on whether the rock he stubbed his toe on was real. But with complicated facts such as AGW or deep science, you want a consensus of the experts if you are going to have confidence that the science has reached a conclusion. And 97% of the relevant scientists is a very strong mandate for AGW theory to be correct. That is also reality.

97% of 79 scientists isn't really very many, is it? Or are you quoting the study of how many times scientist who have signed letters of support of AGW have had their papers cited?

Of course consensus is politics. That has been stated many, many times. Consensus is a political position not a scientific position.

If you have science that could provide evidence that man's burning of fossil fuels has changed the climate, you wouldn't need consensus.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
97% of 79 scientists isn't really very many, is it? Or are you quoting the study of how many times scientist who have signed letters of support of AGW have had their papers cited?
Of course consensus is politics. That has been stated many, many times. Consensus is a political position not a scientific position.
If you have science that could provide evidence that man's burning of fossil fuels has changed the climate, you wouldn't need consensus.

This is the response to pay attention to:

We accept and rely upon the judgment and opinions of experts in many areas of our lives. We seek out lawyers with specific expertise relevant to the situation; we trust the pronouncement of well-trained airplane mechanics that the plane is fit to fly. Indeed, the more technical the subject area, the more we rely on experts. Very few of us have the technical ability or time to read all of the primary literature on each cancer treatment’s biology, outcome probabilities, side-effects, interactions with other treatments, and thus we follow the advice of oncologists. We trust the aggregate knowledge of experts – what do 97% of oncologists think about this cancer treatment – more than that of any single expert. And we recognize the importance of relevant expertise – the opinion of vocal cardiologists matters much less in picking a cancer treatment than does that of oncologists.

Our paper Expert Credibility in Climate Change is predicated on this idea. It presents a broad picture of the landscape of expertise in climate science as a way to synthesize expert opinion for the broader discourse. It is, of course, only a first contribution and, as such, we hope motivates discussion and future research. We encourage follow-up peer-reviewed research, as this is the mark of scientific progress. Nonetheless, some researchers have offered thoughtful critiques about our study and others have grossly mischaracterized the work. Thus, here we provide responses to salient comments raised.

..

In sum, the various comments and mischaracterizations discussed above do not in any way undermine the robust findings of our study. Furthermore, the vast majority of comments pertain to how the study could have been done differently. To the authors of such comments, we offer two words – do so! That’s the hallmark of science. We look forward to your scientific contributions – if and when they are peer-reviewed and published – and will be open to any such studies. In our study we were subjected to two rounds of reviews by three social scientists and in addition comments from the PNAS Board, causing us to prepare three drafts in response to those valuable peer comments that greatly improved the paper. We hope that this response further advances the conversation.

Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

P.S. You kepp ignoring the consensus of evidence. That's all.

Errata

P.S. You keep ignoring the consensus of evidence. That's all.

P.P.S. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/68...

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
You want reality to change for each post???

So in your own personal version of what you think is reality, its OK for Spaceblues to spam every form with the same post and expect no one to call him on it. You are a strange self deluded little man.

SpaceBlues wrote:

Errata
P.S. You keep ignoring the consensus of evidence. That's all.
P.P.S. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/68...

Actually it doesn't work that way at all.

When we go to an oncologist, we are relying on information as to how this has been treated in the past and the statistical outcomes that were achieved.

No such data is available for climate science. The predictions of run a way temperatures haven't been realized. The west freeway in NYC is still above water. There's still ice in the arctic and snow in Britain. The 'missing heat' still can't be found.

What this says is that the 'climate experts' are not yet ready for prime time.

When the climate experts can show us what actually did work and can point to positive outcomes, then maybe what 97% of the 79 scientists, who responded to the survey, said, might matter.

Fun Facts wrote:

Actually it doesn't work that way at all.
When we go to an oncologist, we are relying on information as to how this has been treated in the past and the statistical outcomes that were achieved.
No such data is available for climate science. The predictions of run a way temperatures haven't been realized. The west freeway in NYC is still above water. There's still ice in the arctic and snow in Britain. The 'missing heat' still can't be found.
What this says is that the 'climate experts' are not yet ready for prime time.
When the climate experts can show us what actually did work and can point to positive outcomes, then maybe what 97% of the 79 scientists, who responded to the survey, said, might matter.

I suppose you realise we're dealing with a bunch of brainwashed individuals who believe that just because they have a smattering of scientific education, they feel as if they're a part of the process.
On a daily basis, we're discussing so many different subjects that thousands of individuals have spent years learning one aspect of.
Most alarmist posters here appear to be experts in each and every one, apart from SpaceDummy, he's just a gofer.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually it doesn't work that way at all.
When we go to an oncologist, we are relying on information as to how this has been treated in the past and the statistical outcomes that were achieved.
No such data is available for climate science. The predictions of run a way temperatures haven't been realized. The west freeway in NYC is still above water. There's still ice in the arctic and snow in Britain. The 'missing heat' still can't be found.
What this says is that the 'climate experts' are not yet ready for prime time.
When the climate experts can show us what actually did work and can point to positive outcomes, then maybe what 97% of the 79 scientists, who responded to the survey, said, might matter.

All of this is meaningless and incorrect.

What's prime time when the present is producing the future? Climate experts are are already Nobel prize winners. They publish in the premier science journals. They are members of science academies.

You are out of touch of science reality. Your ideology has rendered you blind and deaf.

Climate experts are already Nobel prize winners. (correction)

SpaceBlues wrote:

Climate experts are already Nobel prize winners.(correction)

so is Al Gore.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
so is Al Gore.

But NOT you.

SpaceDummy wrote:

All of this is meaningless and incorrect.

No, kid, you're meaningless and incorrect.
Plus you're a waste of space and oxygen.

SpaceBlues wrote:

Errata
P.S. You keep ignoring the consensus of evidence. That's all.
P.P.S. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/68...

Considering that there are no consensus in evidence. Evidence is something that can be verified and consensus is nothing more than a general agreement by a majority of a group.

So if you said that the consensus is that alarmist agree that global warming is caused by man then you would be correct. That the majority of that group agree to that conclusion.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Because they want the money.
...

LOL.

To undermine climate science sceptics are on Heartland Institute's payroll with funding from carbon industry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/fe...

DENIERGATE exposed!