Originally posted by @apathist
What I do is listen to experts. There can be controversy so listen carefully.

What reason is there to think we are not changing the environment? We obviously are. We should be concerned. We can listen to pundits with no relevant skills, that's clearly true.

Which experts? What are their names?
Selecting which people to listen to might be why you are convinced you know something that you do not. It is not obvious.

Originally posted by @humy
That is also all I do. Why should we listen to metal-brain and other non-experts that have opinions on expert subjects rather than listen to the experts?

Which experts? What are their names?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Which experts?

Most of them in the world.

What are their names?

You think we know millions of names?
Do you know all their names?
Do you deny the experts exist?

Originally posted by @humy
Most of them in the world.

What are their names?

You think we know millions of names?
Do you know all their names?
Do you deny the experts exist?

You have retreated to the consensus position again. FAIL!

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You have retreated to the consensus position again. FAIL!

But YOUR consensus positions are ok?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You have retreated to the consensus position again.

No, it is not a mere consensus position that millions of experts exist and that I just listen to the experts and not idiots like you.
Do you deny that millions of experts exist?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
But YOUR consensus positions are ok?

I questioned the existence of a valid consensus that AGW is the main cause of GW. Even the valid consensus claim is false. We have been over this before. You always claim a consensus exists and when you fail you go back to how the glaciers are melting, then you repeat the whole cycle all over again.

You debate in circles because you cannot prove any of your claims.

Originally posted by @humy
No, it is not a mere consensus position that millions of experts exist and that I just listen to the experts and not idiots like you.
Do you deny that millions of experts exist?

Contact those experts and ask them. You don't know until you ask them. Only an idiot would claim he listens to experts he has never polled and cannot cite a fair poll done competently.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Contact those experts and ask them.

Why? Why not just look up and read their well-published research like I did? (and I also read science textbooks and did university physics courses with reasonable grades).
Tell us exactly what relevant information would you personally expect them to give to me from me personally speaking to them that they strangely didn't bother to publish? -that what everything, including all the CO2-relevant basic physics, all those scientists from many different countries, nationalities and conflicting interests independently published was just one huge hoax as part of some absurd unsustainable world wide conspiracy?
Have YOU personally spoke to them before forming your opinion or are you just being a total hypocrite here?

Originally posted by @humy
Why? Why not just look up and read their well-published research like I did? (and I also read science textbooks and did university physics courses with reasonable grades).
Tell us exactly what relevant information would you personally expect them to give to me from me personally speaking to them that they strangely didn't bother to publish? -that what everyt ...[text shortened]... rsonally spoke to them before forming your opinion or are you just being a total hypocrite here?

Since you have regressed back to the consensus issue I will ask this question you have failed to answer. Do you support a poll that gets the opinions of at least half of climate scientists?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Since you have regressed back to the consensus issue...

No, I Haven't. I am sticking to the known scientific facts discovered by the experts.

Originally posted by @humy
No, I Haven't. I am sticking to the known scientific facts discovered by the experts.

All the alarmists are avoiding my question. I asked them if they support a poll of at least more than half of climate scientists and none will answer. They are all clearly afraid of what the result will be since they have all failed to answer the question.
Remember Bush v. Gore and how James Baker didn't want certain counties in Florida to be recounted? Bush and Baker obviously were afraid of the results of the recount of those counties. Same thing with a better poll. Alarmists don't want another poll that is more thorough. They are fearful of the result much like republicans were fearful of a complete recount.

Yet another pathetic double standard!

Originally posted by @metal-brain
All the alarmists are avoiding my question. I asked them if they support a poll of at least more than half of climate scientists and none will answer. They are all clearly afraid of what the result will be since they have all failed to answer the question.
Remember Bush v. Gore and how James Baker didn't want certain counties in Florida to be recounted ...[text shortened]... ch like republicans were fearful of a complete recount.

Yet another pathetic double standard!

But of course YOUR double standard cannot accept actual consensus figures of actual climate scientists:
This from Skeptical Science:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS say humans are responsible for the present climate change problem.

But of course you will now move the goalpost and just go, How do we know those were climate scientists, you can't trust polls.

But you sure as HELL would trust polls agreeing with your agenda.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
But of course YOUR double standard cannot accept actual consensus figures of actual climate scientists:
This from Skeptical Science:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS say humans are responsible for the present climate change problem.

But of course you will now move the ...[text shortened]... ts, you can't trust polls.

But you sure as HELL would trust polls agreeing with your agenda.

FALSE!

That 97% does not claim humans are the main cause of GW. We have been over this before. Remember when I said I agree with that 97% because I accepted that man is causing the nights to be warmer? You asked me if that was proof of AGW and I said "no" and that it was my opinion and nothing more.

Do you remember now? I have noticed that your memory is not the best. You really should consider the possibility that you are experiencing symptoms of dementia. I have to constantly remind you of things you cannot remember.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
FALSE!

That 97% does not claim humans are the main cause of GW. We have been over this before. Remember when I said I agree with that 97% because I accepted that man is causing the nights to be warmer? You asked me if that was proof of AGW and I said "no" and that it was my opinion and nothing more.

Do you remember now? I have noticed that your me ...[text shortened]... xperiencing symptoms of dementia. I have to constantly remind you of things you cannot remember.

You have reading comprehension problems? Read it again.
"1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists."
This is right on the front page of that report.
What is your problem admitting 8 BILLION humans pooping in our own garden is not going to cause problem?