, but I am explicitly inviting the following people to put in their two cents, because we have had an unfinished discussion on the subject, and/or because I am interested in what you have to say (however, feel free to ignore if you are uninterested): @n0eLJerom wrote:notification
@knuschn0eL wrote:notification
@Metisknusch wrote:notification
@howlingwolfpawMetis wrote:notification
howlingwolfpaw wrote:notification
No source on the whole internet would make any non-physicist understand the physics behind this in the slightest. Piers Corbyn says that the solar and lunar magnetic fields are what drive the climate of the earth, and has asked for a serious debate with any physicist who claims otherwise (but frankly I don't think those physicists exist). There are a number of debates with Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology) and Piers Corbyn (Astrophysicist), but none of them are discussing the physics behind it (because it is probably impossible to find a physicist who's ready to defend the CO2 hype in a debate). Richard and Piers always end up having to argue against cheap rhetoric (e.g. ad populum and ad hominem).
I don't know what kind of studies you want me give you, but I have not been interested in searching for articles on the subject, because the countless videos on the subject on YouTube are more than enough evidence (however, you can probably easily find the actual research papers of the studies explained in the four links I have included). Having Piers explaining climate in layman's terms is probably the best way to understand (and he and others have done that in plenty of YouTube videos). It is possible to disagree on politics and ethics, but not on science and facts. To be honest, the documentary and the separate videos of Piers, Richard, and Christopher are more interesting than any paper you could read. Let me explain why the CO2 hype is a lie:
The arguments from people on the CO2 hype-train are almost exclusively fallacies (e.g. ad populum, ad hominem, Pascal's wager):
- Christopher Monckton debating on Australian TV (Pascal's wager at 5:41)
- Christopher Monckton before US congress (part 2/3) (ad hominem and bullying at 6:08)
- Christopher Monckton interviewed by Australian TV (he gets cut off and discredited at 5:27)
- Piers Corbyn on British TV (I don't even know in what category to put the argument at 4:31)
- Debate between Bill Nye and Richard Lindzen (ad populum and slight ad verecundiam at 6:08)
- Discussion between British politician and Richard Lindzen (Tim Yeo's agenda is clearly not to have a discussion, but to obsessively try to put words in Richard's mouth)
People opposing the CO2 hype are requesting evidence and debates/discussions, but no scientist (of the alleged 97% of the world's scientist) is stepping forward:
- Piers Corbyn on British TV (Piers welcoming any scientist to a conference, but Ackers is obviously uninterested at 3:41)
- Piers Corbyn calling out Brian Cox to a debate (Brian Cox is apparently a Professor of Physics who's on the CO2 hype-train. I predict Brian Cox isn't accepting the debate.)
- Christopher Monckton calling out Al Gore to a debate
- A group of 30,000 scientists calling out for a debate
There are huge political motives behind the CO2 hype:
- Richard Lindzen and Paul Reiter saying that IPCC lies about the 97% (at 4:31)
- Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Philip Stott, Nigel Calder, James Shikwati, and Patrick Moore point out various political motives to perpetuate the lie (5:55-7:30)
- Nigel Lawson pointing out that people are afraid to come out as non-believers (at 8:42)
- Government funding propping up the number to 97% (at 45:14)
- Why model-forecasts of complex systems is rather propaganda than truth (at 50:50)
- Natural disasters caused by warming is nothing but fear mongering propaganda (at 53:18)
- IPCC censoring what they do not wish to hear (at 59:44)
- IPCC's immense deception to raise the number to 97% (at 1:00:53)
- Scientists speaking out against the CO2 hype get punished (at 1:01:51)
- Piers Corbyn predicts global cooling for the coming 20 years (at 3:05)
- Nigel Farage speaking up against the lies and points out the global cooling (at 1:20)
- As a cause of the CO2 hype, there are more laws and more taxation. This is a huge motive to make people believe in man-made global warming even if it weren't true (and it isn't).
The most important arguments (I think) against the CO2 hype:
If the warming is caused by greenhouse gases, the troposphere should be warmer than it is (16:54 - 20:14)
The rise in CO2 comes after the rise in temperature; not the other way around (at 22:40)
Explanation of why CO2 increases as a cause of rise in temperature (25:44 - 27:40)
Explanation of how the sun, cosmic rays, and clouds control the temperature (28:40-36:00)
Notable people that oppose the CO2 hype that I am aware of:
- Nir Shaviv (Professor of Physics)
- Ian Clark (Professor of Geology)
- Piers Corbyn (Astrophysicist, weather forecaster)
- John Christy (climate scientist)
- Paul Reiter (biologist)
- Richard Lindzen (Professor of Physics)
- Patrick Moore (co-founder and former President of Greenpeace)
- Roy Spencer (Ph. D. in meteorology)
- Patrick Michaels (Ph. D. in climatology)
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Professor of Geophysics)
- Frederick Sanger (Biochemist, two-time Nobel Prize winner)
- Carl Wunsch (Professor of Oceanography)
- Eigil Friis-Christensen (Professor of Geophysics)
- Joe Bastardi (meteorologist)
TL;DR (shame on you):
- The claim that 97% of scientists (or whatever the explicit claim is) is a lie (also note that people are being paid to join this 97%), and even if it weren't, science and reality has never and will never be about consensus. There have been many times throughout history where the consensus has been wrong. And in our modern society with the extreme influence of the media, getting the masses to reach a consensus on anything is extremely easy.
- The voices of the opposition are effectively silenced, strenghtening the illusion that the vast majority of scientists agree on the subject. I wasn't even aware that there was a dispute about global warming until I accidentally stumbled upon it on the internet.
- Whenever their voices finally manage to get heard, they are patronized and their arguments are ignored, while the above discussed point of the 97% is referred to. Cheap rhetoric seems to be sufficient to avoid the debate.
- There's a strong political motive to perpetuate this lie, because of immense taxation and regulations imposed on the people as a cause of it.
I have spent so much time writing this, that it is possible I have forgot a lot. I might edit this post in the future if I find it appropriate.