https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/

“CO2 is plant food there can’t be a pollutant”. Wow.

Too true TimmyTee. There isn’t a single scientific fact on that petition. All of those 6 claims are unsubstantiated and contain not a shred of evidence to back them up. As far as HabuHunter’s claim of “700 climate scientists” signing this letter:

There’s 102 signatories from Australia. Going through the list I count maybe 1 who could remotely claim to be a scientist in a field somehow related to climatology. As for the rest there’s a lot of miners, mining company CEOs, shipbuilders, aircraft engineers, a state MP who is a cattle farmer, a journalist, a doctor and businesspeople. Or in no way, shape or form climate scientists.

You’re going to have to try harder next time HabuHunter!

I haven’t been “shouting” at anyone. I’ve just pointed out false statements presented by others and debunked them with linked info from scientific sources. That’s not “shouting”.
tQUOTE]

You have not debunked 1 single fact. You have not provided empirical evidence to support your claims. Websites like skeptical science are just complete hogwash.

The climate models used today have been proven to be wildly inaccurate. That is a FACT not a claim. The fact that the main champions and poster children for man made climate emergency are The Left wing people like Hollywood, Greta Thunberg and the left liberal media including FAKE NEWS CNN says a hell of a lot.

We on the right require FACTS....not a tug on the heart strings.

Dr Dre said: “There’s 102 signatories from Australia. Going through the list I count maybe 1 who could remotely claim to be a scientist in a field somehow related to climatology. As for the rest there’s a lot of miners, mining company CEOs, shipbuilders, aircraft engineers, a state MP who is a cattle farmer, a journalist, a doctor and businesspeople. Or in no way, shape or form climate scientists.”
”You’re going to have to try harder next time HabuHunter!”


So of the 700 scientists you eliminate 101 of them... I supposed you used sourcewatch or skeptical science websites again to “debunk” these scientists.....what about the remaining 599?

You want to discount people because they are not “real climate scientists” (it’s the “not a real Scotsman fallacy”-look it up) but you are happy to rely on anonymous websites or other sources who are definitely not climate scientists.

I’m just trying to help you see your own logical fallacies and also try to ensure that both sides of the debate get a fair and rational airing.


For for others who are more open minded and interested in getting a bit of balance in the debate:

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/upload...tober-2019.pdf

Could you please point out where the peer reviewed studies or documents that back up each of those claims made on page 2 of that document (Warming is slow, unreliable models, CO2 is good) are located? Could you post some links to those from some credible scientific sources please?

Dr Dre said: “ “There’s still a debate ongoing within science” is a logical fallacy itself.”

This is not a logical fallacy.


Dr Dre said: “Saying “both sides” implies that it’s roughly an even split between deniers and scientists”

No it doesn’t.
And I see you’ve edited your comments regarding not allowing both sides of a debate to be heard. That was a telling comment which revealed your bias.


Dr Dre said: “There were only 14 people on that declaration that could be counted as experts in the subject field.”

This is a good example of the “not a real Scotsman logical fallacy”. It it goes like this: All Scotsmen eat porridge for breakfast.
But my Uncle is a Scotsman and he doesn’t eat porridge. Oh but he isn’t a real Scotsman!

You’ve whittled down the list of 700 scientists because they’re not “real climate scientists”. How do you define a “climate scientist”? How do you determine “an expert in the field”?
Realistically just about any well trained scientist, but especially those who have studied physics, mathematics, engineering, modelling, statistics, geosciences etc will be able to look at a climate paper and follow along and understand and form an opinion.
And then you link an article which has 6 scientists commenting on the letter but only 1 of them is currently working in the climate field.
You are persistent with your fallacies but you are not consistent!

Congrats for arguing little snippets of my post but ignoring the overall argument. I disagree with your logic but lets just accept this part of your post as accurate:


Wouldn't you be shocked to hear that those groups of people have read climate papers and come to these conclusions:

Physics:
Statement on Earth's Changing Climate

Engineers:
Engineers Australia - Climate Change Policy

Statisticians:
Statement on Climate Change

Geologists:
Statement on Climate Change

And you can also add societies of Meteorologists, Chemists, Astronomers, Oceanographers, Biologists, Marine Scientists, Agricultural Scientists, Environmental Scientists, Medical Scientists and so on and so forth....

So Dr Dre, you and I agree that scientists from fields other than climate change can make meaningful contributions to the debate.
So that means that the 700 climate scientists/scientists/scholars/eminent thinkers etc who signed the no climate emergency letter sent to the UN are also making a meaningful contribution to the debate.


We are making progress.

Yes, you’ve just admitted you wrote a falsehood in post #245, when you said “700 climate scientists”, now it’s “climate scientists/scientists/scholars/eminent thinkers” ( you’re also ignoring the tonnes of business people with fininacial links to industries that may lose money due to climate action policies) but at least you are making progress. ;)

There’s about a minimum of 7.8 million scientific researchers in the world so even if we make all your 700 signers “scientists” it’s still only 0.009% of the total so you’re going to have a find a few more to bring that total up to at least 3%.

Anyway this talk of who has more scientists is irrelevant because that climate declaration signed by the 700 still has zero hard scientific facts to back up up the claims made on page 2 of that document (Warming is slow, unreliable models, CO2 is good). Could you post some links to those from some credible scientific sources please?

Sorry Dr Dre, I should have made it plain that I take your point that the term “climate scientists” may have been misleading... it is not my intention to mislead.



You just admitted that those 700 letter signers are a credible scientific source.
Will you link me to the study that proves man made CO2 is causing a climate emergency?

I agree slow progress is being made in this discussion.
Can we agree that
A) There are some credible scientific researchers/thinkers/contributors that have doubts that we are in a ‘climate emergency’?
B) The output of computer models that forecast future temperatures aren’t scientific facts
C) There is a consensus among scientists that AGW is a real concern
D) There is a kind of polarising hysteria around the subject that rewards moderate positions with a broad disdain from the two extreme camps?

Nicely done 73qanda.

I agree with A and B.

I think C you should change the word “consensus” so it reads:
C) There are a large number of scientists that believe AGW is a real concern. (There are still a number of scientists who think the effects of AGW have only a small if any part to play.)

I’m not sure I agree with D. I think if you just used the first bit it’s ok :
D) There is a kind of polarising hysteria around the subject.