daheff wrote: » my view is we just dont have enough data to make a valid determination. Reasonally proper regular temperature records only go back to around 1840s, but we know there have been ice ages and the earth was warmer than now when there were dinosaurs. historical records tell us there were a lot of winters in 1700s where the Thames was so regularly frozen that there were organised winter markets on it. Krakatowa erruption in late 1880s caused world temperatures to drop a couple of degrees for the next few years because of the amount of ash it blew up into the atmosphere. We cant conclusively say mankind is causing the increase in temperatures (& that its not a coincidence)... but we can reduce the pollution we cause & hope that it helps.
dudara wrote: » Sorry, it's the scientist part of me crying quietly on the inside.
TheQuietFella wrote: » Don't be pedantic! :D:D
dudara wrote: » It’s CO2, not C02. Carbon and Oxygen.
xckjoo wrote: » My predictions from a week ago all came true! Nostrodamus eat your heart out.
xckjoo wrote: » For those that didn't see the last threads on climate change, it usually degenerates into a small subset of posters swamping the thread by nit-picking "facts" (i.e. things they tell you you think are facts), failure to understand how modelling and statistical analysis works and links to dodgy websites that back them up in an argument nobody was having with them. Think along the lines of "they weren't 100% right about this one thing so it must a global conspiracy" type stuff. Don't bother trying to counter-argue a point because the goalposts will be moved before you even line-up your shot. Even if you do provide an explanation or proof, it's ignored or not understood.
Akrasia wrote: » Actually, F*ck it, here's a statement signed by loads of organisations that represent loads of the scientists in the USA relevant to climate change. but yeah, there is no consensus. BTW, this is just one statement, there are loads of other joint statements by other conferences of scientists that say the same thing.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Your argument is subscribing heavily to denialism. Basically the art of misrepresenting facts, figures, context, information, science, etc in order to attack/discredit a scientifically or factually based consensus In this case it's being obsessed with the number "97", on a personal crusade and requiring everyone to "prove" everything to you do the nth degree, which you will never subjectively accept - hence the debate goes in circles If I were so inclined I could play the same game with e.g. historical death figures and tie a debate up in knots using the same dishonest toolbox of debate tricks In this argument, on one side we have the weight of scientific evidence and consensus and on the other side we have a game of deliberately misrepresenting that evidence One is supported by evidence, the other by an abuse of it
Akrasia wrote: » Right, so you didn't answer any of my questions except to say humans only emit a 'minute' amount of CO2 Which of course, is complete Bollox Humans emit about 36 billion tonnes of Co2 a year A hundred times more than all the volcanoes in the world combined. Even the strongest eruptions, like Pinatubo, emit only a fraction of 1 percent of human emissions per year. And this is CO2 that it took millions of years for the natural carbon cycle to sequester deep underground The rest of your rant is just that, the unhinged ramblings of a loon your final statement about never having 'came across anyone who is a scientist' who agrees that there is a consensus, (except for the scientists who produced those multiple studies that all show an overwhelming consensus, duh), just shows how your crazy little mind works. You put all the data you don't like into one compartment in your brain marked 'ignore' and let all the nonsense and conspiracy run free. I can give you a long list of respected climate scientists who have all referenced the consensus when talking about climate change, but you'll probably put that in your ignore box too. It's shockingly laughable how wrong this is given that the IPCC produces reports that involve thousands of scientists who are in broad agreement and collaborate to produce their reports
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming.While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures. In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades.In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex.Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009 "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
dense wrote: » So you're adding yourself to the growing number of posters who are refusing to endorse the 97% of scientists claim.
June 28, 2016 Dear Members of Congress, We, as leaders of major scientific organizations, write to remind you of the consensus scientific view of climate change. Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science. There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.1 To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced. In addition, adaptation is necessary to address unavoidable consequences for human health and safety, food security, water availability, and national security, among others. We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with you on the scientific issues important to your deliberations as you seek to address the challenges of our changing climate. 1 The conclusions in this and the preceding paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. National Academies, and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Statistical Association, Ecological Society of America, and Geological Society of America. American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical Association Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation Association of Ecosystem Research Centers BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium Botanical Society of America Consortium for Ocean Leadership Crop Science Society of America Ecological Society of America Entomological Society of America Geological Society of America National Association of Marine Laboratories Natural Science Collections Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Society for Mathematical Biology Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Society of Nematologists Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America University Corporation for Atmospheric Research American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences American Meteorological Society American Public Health Association American Society of Agronomy American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists American Society of Naturalists
dense wrote: » Humans emit a minute amount of C02 into the atmosphere. You will say that although it is minute it is controlling weather and ultimately climate all over the globe in different ways. It is blamed for causing snow, cold weather, heatwaves, warm weather, dry weather, wet weather the list goes on. Yet you admit to doing nothing about your own carbon footprint and urge others to do nothing about theirs either. Or, possibly I have that wrong, they should be doing something, but you shouldn't if you read up about it. The only point at which you will make an effort is under an edict from government. And this pretty much sums up everyone feigning horror about climate change, feign horror, and pretend their contribution to adding C02 is too insignificant and carry on as normal. This is reflected in the breast beating hypocrisy of those on the climate change circuit, conferencing at exotic locations and describing socialist dictators as stars of the show. As quoted by the complete socialiat nutters in Friends of the Earth, our Leading Climate Expert describes a man who decries the "brutal capitalist system" as his starhttp://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/01/15/evo-morales-ten-commandments-against-capitalism-for-life-and-humanity/https://www.foe.ie/blog/2014/12/09/planetary-passion-versus-protecting-the-national-interest-tuesday-at-the-un-climate-talks/ Friends of the Earth also lay it down large here, in their true agenda laid bare:https://www.foei.org/news/the-lima-declaration Every word I'm sure you will condone. This social experiment about reducing fossil fuel usage has little to do with science. These are the same people who thought it was a good idea if everyone bought a diesel car to nip to the shops in:https://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/gd52wh/dispatches--britains-diesel-scandal-channel-4-dispatches/ and which are now killing tens of thousands of people. The same people who now think getting everyone to buy electric cars is clever. We know it has little to do with "the environment" because we've already been told that:https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/ And I have said here elsewhere: And everyone looks the other way. This is either science or its not. It is not. It is using a misunderstood niche science as a vehicle to introduce a political agenda, an agenda that will be required before those pretending to be most alarmed by climate change will actually bother doing anything about.https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally This is a science hoax of the biggest magnitude, and a quest for the implementation of socialism and social justice dreamt up by the usual suspects who rely on those with low concentration thresholds to have implemented. Think AAA people before profit types. And the Pope, let's not forget that much loved man, on climate change and contraception etc. Now, note that I haven't given any view per se on socialism or indeed capitalism, because I don't have to. Plus, it would be irrelevant. All I'm doing here is reporting the facts, with linked sources. People can make up their own minds. By the way, I don't think I've ever come across anyone who is a scientist pushing the "97% of scientists" angle, have you? Well except the authors of course!
feargale wrote: » There is no need to scrape a barrel when the death toll in Greek fires exceeds a hundred and temperatures hit 46 in Portugal. Talking of scraping barrels, read this: In 1953, a great deal of attention was given to an experiment by Ernst Wynder, Evarts Graham and Adele Croninger, showing that tumours could be generated by painting cigarette smoke tars onto the shaved backs of mice.12 Life magazine devoted several pages to the story, and Time cited Graham's conclusion that the case against tobacco had now been proved ‘beyond any doubt’.13 Public confidence in tobacco was shaken, and stock prices of American cigarette manufacturers plummeted. Tobacco manufacturers saw this new ‘health scare’ as a mortal threat to their livelihood, and decided to organise a response. On December 14, 1953, at the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, CEOs of the six largest tobacco manufacturers in the USA (all but Liggett) met to plan a response. The outcome was a far-reaching plan to refute the accumulating evidence, using adverts, ‘white papers’, press releases and corporate schmoozing with popular science writers and journalists. Support for (industry-friendly) science was a vital part of this enterprise: cigarette manufacturers called for ‘more research’ to resolve a purported ‘controversy’, and set out to reassure the public that the companies were taking charge. That campaign was by and large a success, judging from the fact that per capita consumption rebounded from its dip in 1953. Cigarette consumption in the USA would in fact continue to grow throughout the 1960s and 1970s, peaking at about 630 billion sticks in 1982 before starting to decline. Now, if the tobacco industry was so callous about human life, do you seriously believe, given what we know about them, that other multinational industries, oil etc, are more responsible, that they wouldn't stoop to bribing compromised scientists into supporting their myths? Climate change denial and greed are natural bedfellows. What profit is there for any scientist in denying climate change? Those who find it all an inconvenient truth, including everyone who sells petrol in Ballymagash can go on denying, and their grandchildren may find it's too late.
“From the 1950s onward, the oil and tobacco firms were using not only the same PR firms and same research institutes, but many of the same researchers,” CIEL President Carroll Muffett said in a statement. “Again and again we found both the PR firms and the researchers worked first for oil, then for tobacco,” he said. “It was a pedigree the tobacco companies recognized and sought out.”https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
dense wrote: » Humans emit a minute amount of C02 into the atmosphere.
Global emissions from all human activities will reach an all-time record 45 billion tons in 2017, following a projected 2% rise in burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal, the study revealed. ...... Global levels of carbon emissions have skyrocketed in recent decades. Sixty years ago, the world spewed only 9.2 billion tons per year.
All I'm doing here is reporting the facts, with linked sources
Akrasia wrote: » Dense, Exactly which parts of the consensus on climate change do you disagree with? Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you agree that humans burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere? Do you agree that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gone from about 280ppm to over 400ppm? Do you agree that the world is warming because of CO2 that humans have released by burning fossil fuels? Do you agree that we've already warmed by about 1c since the turn of the last century None of those statements are in any way controversial in the scientific community even amongst self described 'skeptics,'
We have met to continue our debates and share a variety of ways to resist and fight for the construction of social justice, against the patriarchal, racist and homophobic capitalist system, for the respect of the diversity of life without exploitation or ruining of natural resources, for the right of the people to decide upon their community-‐based energy sources, for the reduction of social inequality, and to promote Good Living as a model of life in harmony with Nature and Mother Earth.
United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer. For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."
You are not at an UNIPCC love in. This is a discussion on a board in a country which is being threatened with millions of euros of fines for "climate change" that no one is able attribute to it, a country where socialist politicians who want to have their cake and eat it are virtue signalling about their success ending fossil fuel exploration, where stupid activists celebrate the fact that they are bringing the government to court for failing to avert climate change and where a Citizens Assembly of apparent climate justice enthusiasts vote for higher taxes whilst being unable to articulate how it will avert climate change.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
Dakota Dan wrote: » You're really scraping the arse of the barrel for an argument.
Dohnjoe wrote: » 1. How many of those 12,000 papers were specifically drafted to produce a "verdict"? 2. Of those verdicts, how many endorsed AGW? 3. Of those verdicts, how many didn't endorse AGW? Just because there are thousands of papers on a subject e.g. evolution, it doesn't mean that each one is drafted to reach a specific conclusion - many will be about an aspect of evolution with no such remit to produce a "verdict" or to "endorse" it If you don't understand this concept - it has now been explained If you do understand this concept - you are being deliberately obtuse and pedantic
Grayson wrote: » We don't know since their papers did not make any conclusion. The scientists themselves may agree or disagree, it's just that their results didn't support either side.
Table 1. Definitions of each type of research category. Category Description Example (1) Impacts Effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity '...global climate change together with increasing direct impacts of human activities, such as fisheries, are affecting the population dynamics of marine top predators' (2) Methods Focus on measurements and modeling methods, or basic climate science not included in the other categories 'This paper focuses on automating the task of estimating Polar ice thickness from airborne radar data...' (3) Mitigation Research into lowering CO2 emissions or atmospheric CO2 levels 'This paper presents a new approach for a nationally appropriate mitigation actions framework that can unlock the huge potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in dispersed energy end-use sectors in developing countries' (4) Not climate-related Social science, education, research about people's views on climate 'This paper discusses the use of multimedia techniques and augmented reality tools to bring across the risks of global climate change' (5) Opinion Not peer-reviewed articles 'While the world argues about reducing global warming, chemical engineers are getting on with the technology. Charles Butcher has been finding out how to remove carbon dioxide from flue gas' (6) Paleoclimate Examining climate during pre-industrial times 'Here, we present a pollen-based quantitative temperature reconstruction from the midlatitudes of Australia that spans the last 135 000 years...'
Dohnjoe wrote: » Semantics There are millions of scientists in the world, naturally not all of them are climatologists, meteorologists
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » I’m suggesting that it showed that 97% of papers addressing the causes of climate change said that human activity was the cause.
Dakota Dan wrote: » What about the other 2.7%?
