Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

1…2728303233…43

Comments

  • #872
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Is it not super obvious that an average has little meaning in global terms like this?

    "The earth's average temperature now means little in terms of global warming"?

    That's certainly a super interesting angle to promote xckjoo, but I don't think it'll get much traction from the luvvies who are screaming about a broken climate and keeping the average global temperature below something something using the big C02 control knob and who are intent on returning civilisation back to the 19th century due to a global lack of reliable alternative energy, do you?

    I do see where you're coming from in the sense that the alleged change in the earth's average temperature is pretty much non existent outside of anamolies to arbitrarily chosen baselines, as are the alleged catastrophes that were supposed to have accompanied it.


    Perhaps you could tone the message down a bit?


    How about saying "talking about the global average temperature is as silly as talking about the global average telephone number"?


    I think that's been used already though;)


  • #873
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,704 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    "The earth's average temperature now means little in terms of global warming"?

    That's certainly a super interesting angle to promote xckjoo, but I don't think it'll get much traction from the luvvies who are screaming about a broken climate and keeping the average global temperature below something something using the big C02 control knob and who are intent on returning civilisation back to the 19th century due to a global lack of reliable alternative energy, do you?

    I do see where you're coming from in the sense that the alleged change in the earth's average temperature is pretty much non existent outside of anamolies to arbitrarily chosen baselines, as are the alleged catastrophes that were supposed to have accompanied it.


    Perhaps you could tone the message down a bit?


    How about saying "talking about the global average temperature is as silly as talking about the global average telephone number"?


    I think that's been used already though;)

    The global average temperature certainly is increasing due to climate change. The confusion is that global average temperature is difficult to pin down to a particular number because of all the variables I mentioned before so it's rarely used.

    Satellite measurements can estimate global average temperatures based on inferences and can give accurate results but those results are specific to the particular atmospheric conditions that are being measured, or whether they're measuring surface temperature or ocean temperature. In order to average out these measurements and decide on their weightings to determine what the true average global temperature is, this requires arbitrary judgement calls that mean you can have a range of values that are all equally accurate depending on where you are starting your measurements from.

    Science is about isolating variables from the background noise, and using temperature anomalies rather than absolute values does this very well.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #874
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,704 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect.html





    And guess what (don't tell the alarmists), it still is.




    Is there any progress with your research assignment involving you coming up with the data to support your Irish nuclear bombs hypothesis?


    It's been going on for months now.


    And remember, it ought to be accessible and reproducible.






    Your claim falls into that category, a bit like the 60% extra heat in the oceans claim.



    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
    Just because you're sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA doesn't mean I didn't already fully answer your questions. It's transparent what you're doing dense.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #875
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The global average temperature certainly is increasing due to climate change. The confusion is that global average temperature is difficult to pin down to a particular number because of all the variables I mentioned before so it's rarely used.

    Satellite measurements can estimate global average temperatures based on inferences and can give accurate results based but those results are specific to the exact atmospheric conditions that are being measured, or whether they're measuring surface temperature or ocean temperature. In order to average out these measurements and decide on their weightings to determine what the true average global temperature is, this requires arbitrary judgement calls that mean you can have a range of values that are all equally accurate depending on where you are starting your measurements from.

    Science is about isolating variables from the background noise, and using temperature anomalies rather than absolute values does this very well.


    Let's get something clear here.

    Junk science involves using statistical noise from anomalies in place of absolute temperatures because the average global temperature concept no longer tallies with the alarmist predictions due to a distinct lack of warming predicted by modeling and the inability to distinguish between natural and human influence on such a tiny and now disputed increase.

    Basing global decarbonisation policies on statistical noise and non existent error margins needs to be balanced against the unprecedented effect of urgently restricting energy usage by society.

    It has no public mandate and is only a idea that is held by environmentalists bent on returning the planet to nature.

    Try it and see what will happen.

    Let them try it in London next week, to appease the uneducated loons who are protesting about government policy being responsible for a "broken climate".


    Let energy consumed by fossil fuels be banned in London for a week and we'll see how it works out.

    Then try it in Paris.

    Rapidly switch the energy that modern civilisation consumes to expensive and unreliable alternative energy sources and you will get the economic chaos and breakdown in society you crave.

    There will be no other outcome and according to the settled science it will take centuries for the alleged warming and climate change already locked in to stabilise.

    This UN led social experiment, based on questionable science and non existent data, with it's stated function of radically transforming the global economic system is highly dangerous and irresponsible and must be rejected at every opportunity for the good of society and to enable it to continue to prosper.


  • #876
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Just because you're sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA doesn't mean I didn't already fully answer your questions. It's transparent what you're doing dense.


    Your answer, which has only now appeared, shows that you reckon Ireland is responsible for a whopping 0.1% of the alleged global warming that's occurred since 1998, what's that, 0.1% of an upwardly adjusted 0.2 of a degree, plus or minus the error margins of +- .2 of a degree.


  • Advertisement
  • #877
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Whether one believes in man made climate change or not. Believing that politicians can control climate through taxation is unbelievable.

    Climate has become an unbeatable enemy which requires huge extra resources to fight. Those resources come courtesy of citizens and taxpayers.

    Obviously it is good policy to use scarce resources wisely and to use technology to improve efficiencies.

    However politicians sincerely pledging that x action will have y result when it comes to climate is contemptible.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #878
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    SafeSurfer wrote: »

    However politicians sincerely pledging that x action will have y result when it comes to climate is contemptible.


    In truth there are very few politicians pledging anything and that is why the extreme environmentalists are worked up about.



    No one is listening to them.
    Off-gridders will vote for someone who's policies advocate rationing electricity or petrol or diesel, normal people won't.



    It needs to be explained that Leo's talk of multiplying carbon taxes is the same thing dressed up in sheep's clothing.



    Politicians don't want to deal with tye consequences off switching off the world's power off and nobody wants that bar a few fanatics protesting.



    On the radio today a professor from UCG spoke about how our economy drives emissions, the subtext being that austerity and recession are unavoidable and necessary if emissions are drastically and rapidly cut.

    Let's have a proper No Emissions day and we'll see how it goes.



    None of that silly thing where we turn off a light for an hour once a year as a symbol of something, let's do it properly, no electricity, no transport across the board with no exceptions.


    If it works out well we could do it once a month.


    There'll be opportunities for the Gardai (aided by UN officials) to arrest motorists using their own vehicles for private use on prohibited days.



    That is the kind of state that is dreamt of by those pushing the "global solution".


  • #879
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,546 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Ah yes. The "Big Eco" conspiracy to make millions by getting us to stop over-consuming. Hate those lads. Shower of b*stards


  • #880
    Kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Can we close this thread please?

    "Debate" on climate change is about as valid as flat earth debate. Or the tooth fairy. This thread is pointless. All's it serves is giving nutbars an audience. The thread title itself tells you all you need to know about what you are engaging with.


  • #881
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,158 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Kirby wrote: »
    Can we close this thread please?

    "Debate" on climate change is about as valid as flat earth debate. Or the tooth fairy. This thread is pointless. All's it serves is giving nutbars an audience. The thread title itself tells you all you need to know about what you are engaging with.


    It gives me the occasional chuckle so not totally pointless


  • Advertisement
  • #882
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    The world needs more people like this guy




    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/18/artist-gavin-turk-arrested-in-london-climate-change-protest


  • #883
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Kirby wrote: »
    Can we close this thread please?

    "Debate" on climate change is about as valid as flat earth debate. Or the tooth fairy. This thread is pointless. All's it serves is giving nutbars an audience. The thread title itself tells you all you need to know about what you are engaging with.

    Yes, quick close down the debate.

    Maybe “deniers” should be burned at the stake if it doesn’t release too much carbon.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #884
    bodhrandude
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,095 ✭✭✭✭bodhrandude


    Why is the OP all blank, what did it say apart from thread title.

    If you want to get into it, you got to get out of it. (Hawkwind 1982)



  • #885
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Yes, quick close down the debate.
    Quick? This thread is four months of people attempting to reason with one poster.


  • #886
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    mikhail wrote: »
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Yes, quick close down the debate.
    Quick? This thread is four months of people attempting to reason with one poster.

    Four months? So there is no decisive argument to prove man made climate change and the 12 year point of no return doomsday predictions?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #887
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Four months? So there is no decisive argument to prove man made climate change and the 12 year point of no return doomsday predictions?

    We have substantial amounts of evidence. Dense tends to treat everything that backs up climate change as socialist conspiracies....


  • #888
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Four months? So there is no decisive argument to prove man made climate change and the 12 year point of no return doomsday predictions?
    No, all it shows is that dense would bob in the water, being nibbled at by sharks, still demanding evidence that there was a hole in the boat. I don't know why anyone entertains cranks like him.


  • #889
    2011
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,735 Mod ✭✭✭✭2011


    @ dense: let’s suppose you and all of the other science deniers are correct. What is your plan when you have used up all of the fossil fuels? What will your energy source be then? Would you not think it prudent to invest in renewable energy sources now so that you have an alternative? Would more efficient less polluting industries extend the life of your beloved fossil fuels? Wouldn’t looking at these alternatives keep those “nutters” that believe in stupid things like maths and facts happy are well as you?


  • #890
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    2011 wrote: »
    @ dense: let’s suppose you and all of the other science deniers are correct. What is your plan when you have used up all of the fossil fuels? What will your energy source be then? Would you not think it prudent to invest in renewable energy sources now so that you have an alternative? Would more efficient less polluting industries extend the life of your beloved fossil fuels? Wouldn’t looking at these alternatives keep those “nutters” that believe in stupid things like maths and facts happy are well as you?

    When you say “science deniers” do you mean skeptics of a certain scientific theory.
    Scientific theories which were once regarded as fact have been proven to be wrong before.

    What’s different here is the vitriol directed at any one who questions the theory.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #891
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    When you say “science deniers” do you mean skeptics of a certain scientific theory.
    Scientific theories which were once regarded as fact have been proven to be wrong before.

    What’s different here is the vitriol directed at any one who questions the theory.

    Sample of the crap dense posts that is far from respectful...
    dense wrote: »
    Tell the conscientious objector that two wrongs don't make a right.


    Because here you have the typical lefty who is claiming the high moral ground, banging on endlessly about humanity being destroyed by carbon emissions whilst simultaneously urging individuals NOT to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint.


    Their hope is that individuals do not take action, because any reduction in emissions that came from it would damage their agenda, which is a political one, which is openly begging for a new global socialist regime.

    You've just exposed their political agenda and they're hell bent on using junk science from the UN to have it implemented.


    It's all very Mary Robinson too.


    Someone who has been advising others about the benefits of not eating meat for years is now, at the age of 75, toying with the idea of it applying to herself.


  • Advertisement
  • #892
    Kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Yes, quick close down the debate.

    But there IS no debate. That's the problem.

    A few people screaming out that the sky is green doesn't make the colour of the sky a debate.

    There are just some people that either through vested interest or mental illness that you will find on the "other" side of issues like flat earth, anti-vax, climate change, etc.

    There comes a point where you have done your best to help but you have to admit defeat and just stop enabling them. This thread should have been locked months ago, to be honest. It's just giving trolls what they want.


  • #893
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Kirby wrote: »
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Yes, quick close down the debate.

    But there IS no debate. That's the problem.

    A few people screaming out that the sky is green doesn't make the colour of the sky a debate.

    There are just some people that either through vested interest or mental illness that you will find on the "other" side of issues like flat earth, anti-vax, climate change, etc.

    There comes a point where you have done your best to help but you have to admit defeat and just stop enabling them. This thread should have been locked months ago, to be honest. It's just giving trolls what they want.

    Can human caused climate change skepticism really be lumped together with flat earthists and anti Vaxers.

    Labeling people who hold different views as having mental illness doesn’t do a lot to convince people who are interested in the subject but are skeptical of some of the claims made by the climate change lobby.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #894
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Can human caused climate change skepticism really be lumped together with flat earthists and anti Vaxers.

    Labeling people who hold different views as having mental illness doesn’t do a lot to convince people who are interested in the subject but are skeptical of some of the claims made by the climate change lobby.

    He's ascribing it to a socialist conspiracy to establish a new world order of some kind.... Sounds as wacky as the flat earthers tbh......


  • #895
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,704 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Regarding the calls for this thread to be closed, while I can see the merit in that, its going around in circles, but given the fact that the Dense tends to pop up In every thread on this topic and uses the same conspiratorial reasoning in every thread on this topic. Closing this thread would just be shutting down any discussion on the most important issue of our generation on this forum.

    Posters like dense love to have the discussion shut down and split up because it makes it easier for them to hit and run with the same debunked papers and talking points.

    While Dense will never be open to changing his/her mind, dense does post the kinds of pseudo skeptical arguments that are prima facie convincing until they are challenged with legitimate or more up to date science.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #896
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Can human caused climate change skepticism really be lumped together with flat earthists and anti Vaxers.

    Labeling people who hold different views as having mental illness doesn’t do a lot to convince people who are interested in the subject but are skeptical of some of the claims made by the climate change lobby.

    Yes, yes it can. There is no difference between anti-vaxers and human caused climate change deniers in particular. They both argue against an overwhelming body of evidence and a scientific consensus using strawman arguments, bogus and debunked research whilst hopping all over any even perceived mistakes as if it causes all the other science to be wrong aswell.

    Then there is also the big-pharma conspiracy which is no different to the big-eco conspiracy, i.e. it's all about money., or one big capitalist/socialist conspiracy.


  • #897
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Can human caused climate change skepticism really be lumped together with flat earthists and anti Vaxers.

    Labeling people who hold different views as having mental illness doesn’t do a lot to convince people who are interested in the subject but are skeptical of some of the claims made by the climate change lobby.

    Yes, yes it can. There is no difference between anti-vaxers and human caused climate change deniers in particular. They both argue against an overwhelming body of evidence and a scientific consensus using strawman arguments, bogus and debunked research whilst hopping all over any even perceived mistakes as if it causes all the other science to be wrong aswell.

    Then there is also the big-pharma conspiracy which is no different to the big-eco conspiracy, i.e. it's all about money., or one big capitalist/socialist conspiracy.

    I don’t think it is that simple and the two are not in fact comparable.
    Polio vaccines for example work because their affects can be clearly measured. I don’t know of any credible medical experts who deny the effectiveness of vaccines such as the polio vaccine.
    However man made climate change is still a theory. That is the timescale that human affects on climate change have been observed for is, in the greater scheme of things, tiny.
    There are also many eminent experts in their respective scientific fields in climatology who disagree with the theory of man made climate change even though their names have been included in the UN list of 2,500 experts who unanimously agreee that man made climate change is a reality.

    Also I would suggest that those who argue against a current scientific consensus are not necessarily incorrect.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #898
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    batgoat wrote: »
    He's ascribing it to a socialist conspiracy to establish a new world order of some kind.... Sounds as wacky as the flat earthers tbh......


    Not sure who you're referring to as "he", but are you not up to speed on the UN'S stated aims?


    In your own words, what is meant by this UN press release:

    https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

    By all means stick your head in the sand but please don't deny that there's an a radical agenda to alter the prevailing economic and political global structures amongst those seeking to repair the apparently "broken climate".

    It is an agenda primarily pushed by the left, the likes of Akrasia, Paul Murphy and Coppinger and others who profess to be socialists, and who are highly displeased with the system that Friends of the Earth describe as "barbaric", capitalism.


    I look forward to reading your own interpretation.


  • #899
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,704 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    I don’t think it is that simple and the two are not in fact comparable.
    Polio vaccines for example work because their affects can be clearly measured. I don’t know of any credible medical experts who deny the effectiveness of vaccines such as the polio vaccine.
    However man made climate change is still a theory. That is the timescale that human affects on climate change have been observed for is, in the greater scheme of things, tiny.
    There are also many eminent experts in their respective scientific fields in climatology who disagree with the theory of man made climate change even though their names have been included in the UN list of 2,500 experts who unanimously agreee that man made climate change is a reality.

    Also I would suggest that those who argue against a current scientific consensus are not necessarily incorrect.
    Those who argue against the current consensus need to step up and provide a scientific basis for their objections that stands up to scrutiny and answers more questions than they ask.

    Of the 'skeptics' who disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, they can't even agree amongst themselves
    Here are some of the reasons so called 'skeptics' give to challenge climate change
    It's the sun
    It's El Nino/La Nina
    It's the NAO
    Its all within natural variation
    CO2 is just a trace gas
    Co2 isn't actually increasing
    CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
    The recent past was warmer than it is now
    CO2 is beneficial
    The climate sensitivity is very low
    Climate has changed in the past therefore it's natural
    Humans are too insignificant to cause climate change
    Humans are causing other problems that we should tackle first before we look at climate change
    There isn't enough data to conclude anything yet
    It's too late to do anything
    Humans are powerless to reduce climate change
    Humans cannot 'control' the climate
    It's all a conspiracy, the real scientists are being hounded out of their jobs
    The models are unreliable
    Proxy records are unreliable
    Observations are unreliable
    The historical record is unreliable
    The record has been falsified deliberately to make it look like the planet is warming
    The ice is melting because of underwater volcanoes
    The CO2 increase is because of volcanoes
    Scientists were wrong before when they predicted an ice age
    It's all a plot by governments to increase taxes

    etc etc

    The point being, that the objections to climate science are all over the map. On one side you have the vast majority of climate scientists who accept the greenhouse effect and broad agreement on climate sensitivity being within the generally accepted range

    On the other side are dozens of already falsified theories that contradict each other and can not explain the observations
    Skeptics are reduced to looking to poke holes in the existing theories and haven't got a single alternative explanation for the observed warming that stands up to any scrutiny (when they're not denying the warming entirely)

    I asked dense before to explain how climate changes naturally and dense refused point blank to offer any theory or explanation for natural climate change. The reason for this is obvious. The only drivers of climate change in the past that cannot be ruled out as a factor in todays warming, is the greenhouse effect.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #900
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    2011 wrote: »
    @ dense: let’s suppose you and all of the other science deniers are correct. What is your plan when you have used up all of the fossil fuels? What will your energy source be then? Would you not think it prudent to invest in renewable energy sources now so that you have an alternative? Would more efficient less polluting industries extend the life of your beloved fossil fuels? Wouldn’t looking at these alternatives keep those “nutters” that believe in stupid things like maths and facts happy are well as you?


    We are looking at alternatives and heavily investing in them.
    But unless you believe the conspiracy theories that suggest that we would have alternative energies only for the fact that big oil and government suppressed them and killed their inventors, we do not have an alternative to using fossil fuels. Nuclear might be an option but the environmentalists don't want that either.

    So we are currently not in any position to rapidly switch to an alternative energy source that does not exist and it is foolish and dishonest to give the impression to people that we are. Those people then believe that the process of switching over to an alternative source is simply being held up by red tape etc.

    It's also a bit childish to talk about my "beloved fossil fuels".

    What proponents of the AGW theory are seeking is a global transformation of society, and I've yet to read a description of what that transformation will transform.

    "Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far-
    reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment."

    Would you or anyone else who endorses the UNIPCC position here ever please explain the global economic and societal transformation that you are seeking that you believe are essential to prevent/fix/control/combat/repair "climate change"?


    These unprecedented changes to all aspects of our lives must be implemented within a 12 year window or we're fűcked apparently.

    What are they, how will they be implemented globally if nations are slow to act?
    Who will police, monitor and ensure global compliance with the regulations that will need to be drafted to ensure that these unprecedented changes you are proposing are implemented correctly and fairly across the world?


    We are told by Akrasia that a global solution is the only hope. Seems right, individual nations just arent doing enough and individual action is futile, the evidence is there that nothing so far is working, in spite of all the warnings and pleas, global emissions just keep on rising and continue "breaking the climate".

    So a powerful global entity in charge seems like the best and most efficient way of doing what is necessary, if you disagree with that, please outline the alternatives.

    Thing is, none of them have worked so far, hence the urgent and dire situation the IPCC says we're now in.


  • Advertisement
  • #901
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Those who argue against the current consensus need to step up and provide a scientific basis for their objections that stands up to scrutiny and answers more questions than they ask.

    Of the 'skeptics' who disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, they can't even agree amongst themselves
    Here are some of the reasons so called 'skeptics' give to challenge climate change
    It's the sun
    It's El Nino/La Nina
    It's the NAO
    Its all within natural variation
    CO2 is just a trace gas
    Co2 isn't actually increasing
    CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
    The recent past was warmer than it is now
    CO2 is beneficial
    The climate sensitivity is very low
    Climate has changed in the past therefore it's natural
    Humans are too insignificant to cause climate change
    Humans are causing other problems that we should tackle first before we look at climate change
    There isn't enough data to conclude anything yet
    It's too late to do anything
    Humans are powerless to reduce climate change
    Humans cannot 'control' the climate
    It's all a conspiracy, the real scientists are being hounded out of their jobs
    The models are unreliable
    Proxy records are unreliable
    Observations are unreliable
    The historical record is unreliable
    The record has been falsified deliberately to make it look like the planet is warming
    The ice is melting because of underwater volcanoes
    The CO2 increase is because of volcanoes
    Scientists were wrong before when they predicted an ice age
    It's all a plot by governments to increase taxes

    etc etc

    The point being, that the objections to climate science are all over the map. On one side you have the vast majority of climate scientists who accept the greenhouse effect and broad agreement on climate sensitivity being within the generally accepted range

    On the other side are dozens of already falsified theories that contradict each other and can not explain the observations
    Skeptics are reduced to looking to poke holes in the existing theories and haven't got a single alternative explanation for the observed warming that stands up to any scrutiny (when they're not denying the warming entirely)

    I asked dense before to explain how climate changes naturally and dense refused point blank to offer any theory or explanation for natural climate change. The reason for this is obvious. The only drivers of climate change in the past that cannot be ruled out as a factor in todays warming, is the greenhouse effect.




    Even the IPCC has acknowledged that their hypothesis is not backed by evidence:


    In summary …. it is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., above the 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends.

    In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

    In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.

    Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.

    In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH).



    Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data.


    If man made climate change is indeed a thing, the IPCC is having a very hard time detecting it. But don't let that get in the way of your narrative.






    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mindex.shtml


Advertisement