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

batgoat · 28-11-2018 11:15pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

When I came across this thread, the following video came to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=silfiTY32xo

Think of it what you will. However, he does come off as quite convincing.

Nevertheless, the moving target he is talking about could be the results of continuous intervention where the point of no return is being postponed by changes we are making to tackle climate change.

Having watched numerous documentaries about the topic of global warming and in some cases, global dimming, it would take a lot more than the video above to convince me otherwise.

He's the lunatic from Infowars, the same place that was claiming Sandy Hook was crisis actors.... So the credibility is shot from the get go.

dense · 29-11-2018 12:23am

Akrasia wrote: »

They're not referring directly to the NASA baseline so they're not directly comparable. You're taking references and misapplying them.
the temperature anomaly is measured in 10ths of degrees. If you need evidence, see every single monthly and annual climate report published in my lifetime

OK, the first one that came up was from NOAA.

20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F).

But more importantly it also says:

Please note that different countries report anomalies with respect to different base periods.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201806

It then proceeds to list various national reports of anomalies from a variety of dissonant baselines rendering any global contextual comparisons as a pointless exercise.

Moving to NASA, they explain their maps:

"They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.) In other words, the maps show how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951-1980."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

Do you see what I'm getting at?
NASA is claiming that 30 years at an average 14°C is a suitable baseline out of an observed 100 years at an average of 15.5°C calculated by NOAA.

You will of course immediately say, but NOAA and NASA are different both using different methods to understandably arrive at different temperatures.

I will say that's nice, but they both should be identical with no room for ambiguity because you've said that "climate change is measured in tenths of a degree".

NASA also explain that their baseline reflects normal or average temperature, and anyway it starts when GISS started up and lots of people grew up during that period, which are just silly reasons.

It also implicitly suggests that the decades before and after it were ones with abnormal average temperatures.

And we've also seen that Dr. Hansen had in 1988 originally used 15°C as the average for the 1950 1980 baseline:

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html

In 1998 he communicated to the World Watch Institute his desire to have it at 14 for the then upcoming Vital Signs publication, an institute the sort of which I would expect you to admire rather than deride.

Why do you reject these reports?

When we contrast these slivers of decades and the fuss about anomalies from inconsistent baselines with what the WMO describes as being normal temperatures for earth, 5 to 10 degrees warmer than the present abnormally cooler conditions, it should become clear that there is another agenda at play here, one where the cure may be worse than the disease.

Akrasia · 29-11-2018 9:02am

You really don't understand this at all dense. The absolute global average temperature estimate from surface temperature records is an estimate that has a much higher uncertainty bar than the temperature anomaly figures for the reasons GISS explain on their page.

I suggest you read that again carefully, and then read it again, and keep reading it until you figure out their reasons for using anomaly instead of absolute temperatures in their reports

dense · 29-11-2018 11:55am

Akrasia wrote: »

You really don't understand this at all dense. The absolute global average temperature estimate from surface temperature records is an estimate that has a much higher uncertainty bar than the temperature anomaly figures for the reasons GISS explain on their page.

I suggest you read that again carefully, and then read it again, and keep reading it until you figure out their reasons for using anomaly instead of absolute temperatures in their reports

I suggest the simplest thing to do to avert the tragedy you are seeking is to adjust the global average temperature for the 20th century upwards in order to give us more time to urgently and rapidly reduce our emissions to limit a rise above whatever global average figure that's causing your climactic issues.

It's been done before in the opposite direction to fuel the hysteria and no one minded.

Now, this uncertainty that you're bringing into the discussion, what is it for the 20th century, because NOAA, when stating that the 20th century average temperature was 59.5°F didn't mention any.

I understand that you're now saying that the NOAA 20th century average temperature may have actually been way higher than 59.5°F, or a little lower, because, well, errors.

Is that correct? You do understand all of this stuff you're coming out with don't you?

And that when we speak of limiting 2 degrees of global warming we're talking about comparing the present day global average temperature to the pre industrial one and not anomalies to a 1950 to 1980 baseline.

I'll give you an example, from the UNIPCC's latest disaster manual:

"The Paris Agreement adopted by 195 nations at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in December 2015 included the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

Do you want to get on the blower to them and tell them they're doing it all wrong and they should be only be talking about anomalies to a 30 year baseline at the arse end of the 20th century and you know best?

And their pleas to limit global warming are silly because of all the uncertainties you've discovered regarding the difficulties in citing accurate global average temperatures from which to derive accurate global average temperature anomalies?

If the global average temperature records are estimates with high uncertainties, which is what you're now claiming, it must follow that any information and anomalies derived from it are of similar high uncertainty.

It does seem like the greatest crock of shiť ever to be sold the more factoids you introduce to this discussion.

Akrasia · 29-11-2018 1:45pm

dense wrote: »

I suggest the simplest thing to do to avert the tragedy you are seeking is to adjust the global average temperature for the 20th century upwards in order to give us more time to urgently and rapidly reduce our emissions to limit a rise above whatever global average figure that's causing your climactic issues.

It's been done before in the opposite direction to fuel the hysteria and no one minded.

Now, this uncertainty that you're bringing into the discussion, what is it for the 20th century, because NOAA, when stating that the 20th century average temperature was 59.5°F didn't mention any.

I understand that you're now saying that the NOAA 20th century average temperature may have actually been way higher than 59.5°F, or a little lower, because, well, errors.

Is that correct? You do understand all of this stuff you're coming out with don't you?

And that when we speak of limiting 2 degrees of global warming we're talking about comparing the present day global average temperature to the pre industrial one and not anomalies to a 1950 to 1980 baseline.

I'll give you an example, from the UNIPCC's latest disaster manual:

"The Paris Agreement adopted by 195 nations at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in December 2015 included the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

Do you want to get on the blower to them and tell them they're doing it all wrong and they should be only be talking about anomalies to a 30 year baseline at the arse end of the 20th century and you know best?

And their pleas to limit global warming are silly because of all the uncertainties you've discovered regarding the difficulties in citing accurate global average temperatures from which to derive accurate global average temperature anomalies?

If the global average temperature records are estimates with high uncertainties, which is what you're now claiming, it must follow that any information and anomalies derived from it are of similar high uncertainty.

It does seem like the greatest crock of shiť ever to be sold the more factoids you introduce to this discussion.

Again, you still don't understand the difference between temperature anomaly and absolute temperature.

Lets say I have 4 temperature stations within a 2km distance of my house.
One of them is on the north side of a hill, another is on the south side of the hill. the other is on the top of a hill, the other is in a valley.
The one on the south side of the hill could register a value 2c warmer than the one on the north side, the one in the valley could be 4 c warmer than the temperature at the top of the hill.

How do you calculate the average absolute temperature for this location?
You can't without making a lot of calculations and assumptions about what proportion of the area is represented by those various locations.

How do you calculate the temperature anomaly between these locations on different days? Easy, you look at each station reading directly and measure the difference between them, choose an arbitrary baseline and you can average the anomalies between the 4 different stations.

Studies have shown that absolute temperature can vary by a large amount withing a short geographic area, but temperature anomalies are much more consistent and have much smaller differences compared to other regionally located stations. If there is a temp anomaly showing 1c warmer at the top of the hill, it's likely to be about 1c warmer at the bottom of the hill for those particular locations, if it's 1c colder on the north of the hill, it's likely to be 1c warmer on the south f that hill even if the south could be reading a temperature 2c warmer than the north.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature

It's perfectly consistent for the IPCC to say we need to limit warming by 1.5c above pre-industrial levels and for there to be disagreement over what exact absolute temperature this represents

And these targets are for illustrative purposes, the general rule is that we need to keep temperature increases as low as possible. We've already exceeded safe levels of global warming, it's all damage limitation time now.

If people like you and your contrarian bloggers and industry shills hadn't been obstructing the debate and blocking action, we might have kept to the original target of keeping CO2 to below 400ppm, and if that had happened you could go on to your hearts content about Climate change being all one big damp squib.

Unfortunately, you and your merry band of eco terrorists have got your way and we've wasted 30 years faffing about not really committing to anything, and we are where we are, staring down the barrel of a 600ppm++ CO2 concentrations and a future where every breath you take is poisoning your brain just a little bit and lots of places we used to think of as paradise, are now inhospitable deserts, coastal cities are devastated by sea rises and category 6 hurricanes are a thing now...

Thanks a bunch Dense.

dense · 30-11-2018 1:40am

Akrasia wrote: »

It's perfectly consistent for the IPCC to say we need to limit warming by 1.5c above pre-industrial levels and for there to be disagreement over what exact absolute temperature this represents

You're confusing "consistent" with "legitimate".

If there is disagreement amongst scientists about what the average global temperature is that they are warning us that we should be trying to limit a rise above, so be it.

Let us know when they reach a consensus on it.

As for the rest of your post, if there are any climate helplines out there, I think you should talk to them

dense · 30-11-2018 12:06pm

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.

--

Edit: I reposted this reply, maybe you missed it.

Do you agree or disagree with what it says?
If you disagree with any of it you might say why you do and propose a better and more efficacious alternative global solution that will effect the urgent changes that are said to be required to prevent a global temperature rise of more than 1.5°C above whatever.

xckjoo · 30-11-2018 12:23pm

And once again we see one side is only interested in trying to shoehorn in a conspiracy theory about a New World Order. The science doesn't matter as it's just interpreted in whatever way best fits their purpose.

dense · 30-11-2018 12:58pm

xckjoo wrote: »

And once again we see one side is only interested in trying to shoehorn in a conspiracy theory about a New World Order. The science doesn't matter as it's just interpreted in whatever way best fits their purpose.

Why not address your obvious worries about the global solution to the person who has brought that proposal to the table?

Ask them to clarify how it is going to work if countries continue to refuse to be bothered about reducing emissions and continue breaking the climate.

We need to act now and make urgent and unprecedented changes thar will affect all aspects of society.

I'd love to hear your own thoughts on the subject too, and how you think the necessary changes will be correctly implemented and overseen and who you think will be entrusted with being in charge of not only drafting and implementing but also ensuring that this novel and highly important "global solution" is properly adhered to.

Have a nice one

batgoat · 30-11-2018 1:06pm

dense wrote: »

Why not address your obvious worries about the global solution to the person who has brought that proposal to the table?

Ask them to clarify how it is going to work if countries continue to refuse to be bothered about reducing emissions and continue breaking the climate.

We need to act now and make urgent and unprecedented changes thar will affect all aspects of society.

I'd love to hear your own thoughts on the subject too, and how you think the necessary changes will be correctly implemented and overseen and who you think will be entrusted with being in charge of not only drafting and implementing but also ensuring that this novel and highly important "global solution" is properly adhered to.

Have a nice one

You view it as a communist plot? Right? You've said as much, a fair few times..

dense · 30-11-2018 7:41pm

batgoat wrote: »

You view it as a communist plot? Right? You've said as much, a fair few times..

Hi batgoat, give us your opinion maybe, rather than constantly commenting about mine.

You do have one, right?

It's a bit odd that nobody who endorses the global solution wants to detail it for those who may be unaware of it.

This is your platform to sell it after all, so why not use it?
That's assuming that you're knowledgeable about it, which of course, may not be the case.

So come on folks, sell it to the punters.

Unless you're all waiting for the messiah's return to tell you all what to say.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 30-11-2018 9:02pm

dense wrote: »

Hi batgoat, give us your opinion maybe, rather than constantly commenting about mine.

You do have one, right?

It's a bit odd that nobody who endorses the global solution wants to detail it for those who may be unaware of it.

This is your platform to sell it after all, so why not use it?
That's assuming that you're knowledgeable about it, which of course, may not be the case.

So come on folks, sell it to the punters.

Unless you're all waiting for the messiah's return to tell you all what to say.

It's not about opinion. It's about fact based science. That science says that humans have greatly contributed to Global warming, and that we need to stop.

batgoat · 30-11-2018 9:12pm

dense wrote: »

Hi batgoat, give us your opinion maybe, rather than constantly commenting about mine.

You do have one, right?

It's a bit odd that nobody who endorses the global solution wants to detail it for those who may be unaware of it.

This is your platform to sell it after all, so why not use it?
That's assuming that you're knowledgeable about it, which of course, may not be the case.

So come on folks, sell it to the punters.

Unless you're all waiting for the messiah's return to tell you all what to say.

I'm not here to sell a solution. I'm simply of the view that there's considerable evidence for global warming. This has been demonstrated to you time and time again. No fact would change your mind.

dense · 30-11-2018 11:59pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

It's not about opinion. It's about fact based science. That science says that humans have greatly contributed to Global warming, and that we need to stop.

They were being invited to share their their opinion about how we will implement a global solution to urgently stopping global warming.

It is a legitimate question as it is evident that they accept the need to act urgently.

Do you have one on it? In your own words explain what reliable renewable non emitting energy source will supply 95% of our energy needs by 2050.

And what sort of unprecedented effects a rapid transition to it will have on society in general which is being targeted by the UN to experiment with experiencing "a global transformation 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".

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

We know the science is incontrovertible apart from the inconvenient fact that akrasia has let slip which is that there is no consensus about what the global average temperature of the earth is, was or should be:

Akrasia wrote: »

It's perfectly consistent for the IPCC to say we need to limit warming by 1.5c above pre-industrial levels and for there to be disagreement over what exact absolute temperature this represents

Laters?

Looking forward to discussing the global solution with everyone who's pushing it.

dense · 01-12-2018 12:42am

batgoat wrote: »

I'm not here to sell a solution. I'm simply of the view that there's considerable evidence for global warming. This has been demonstrated to you time and time again. No fact would change your mind.

But we need to act urgently and we need to discuss what we need to do and how we're going to do it.
Everyone needs to be positively engaged and on side.

We do know that just a tiny minority of the world's 8 million scientists (for example, in the most popularly cited research, 97% of just 1,1089 scientists in a study citing almost 12,000 pieces of literature published by 29,083 scientists) have endorsed the AGW theory. Other studies designed to illustrate a global scientific consensus have cited 80 or less scientists.

We don't know what the opinion of the majority of climate scientists is, it's never been sought, so it's unclear how they'd recommend we approach the problem being perceived by those who are urging the implementation of an urgent and unclear solution.

Dohnjoe · 02-12-2018 7:24pm

dense wrote: »

We don't know what the opinion of the majority of climate scientists is

Yes we do, there is an overwhelming consensus on the subject. 97%. Just because someone can write page after page filled with mental gymnastics on numbers akin to other deniers doesn't mean squat

This is why 19 out of 20 of the top world leaders just pledged to fight climate change. The Paris agreement has 195 countries as signatories

Akrasia · 02-12-2018 8:07pm

dense wrote: »

But we need to act urgently and we need to discuss what we need to do and how we're going to do it.
Everyone needs to be positively engaged and on side.

We do know that just a tiny minority of the world's 8 million scientists (for example, in the most popularly cited research, 97% of just 1,1089 scientists in a study citing almost 12,000 pieces of literature published by 29,083 scientists) have endorsed the AGW theory. Other studies designed to illustrate a global scientific consensus have cited 80 or less scientists.

We don't know what the opinion of the majority of climate scientists is, it's never been sought, so it's unclear how they'd recommend we approach the problem being perceived by those who are urging the implementation of an urgent and unclear solution.

What do we need to do?

We need to have global treaty to transition away from CO2 (equivalent) polluting energy and industry with binding targets and sanctions for those countries that don't meet their targets.

For the developing countries who didn't cause this problem and can't afford to transition away from fossil fuels on their own, they should have significant development aid allowing them to do so

After that, it should be up to each country to decide what the best way to meet their binding targets is.

dense · 02-12-2018 8:38pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes we do, there is an overwhelming consensus on the subject. 97%. Just because someone can write page after page filled with mental gymnastics on numbers akin to other deniers doesn't mean squat

This is why 19 out of 20 of the top world leaders just pledged to fight climate change. The Paris agreement has 195 countries as signatories

You needed to edit my post mid sentence in order for you to attempt to rebut what I said, and you failed the moment you did that.

Therefore I'll repeat what I said in order to give you another chance to understand it:

The most popularly cited research specifically designed to demonstrate a scientific consensus, failed to do so.

It cited the work of 29,083 scientists.

It analysed 11 944 climate abstracts and found just 32.6% percent of them endorsed AGW.

Of the 29,083 scientists cited in the study, just 1,189 of them endorsed the AGW.

I'm sorry if this is too much for you to comprehend.

This was the largest attempt ever undertaken to demonstrate a scientific consensus, looking at almost 12,000 climate change abstracts, involving almost 30,000 scientists, and it failed to demonstrate a majority consensus.

The study I refer to is here, it has been downloaded 873741 times.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Where are you getting your figure of 97% from?

A small scale study that involved 5 or 6 climate scientists?
Please link to your source, because randomly throwing out 97% with no context is just stupid.

Akrasia · 02-12-2018 9:24pm

Dohnjoe · 03-12-2018 12:51am

dense wrote: »

The most popularly cited research specifically designed to demonstrate a scientific consensus, failed to do so.

There is an overwhelming consensus. You clearly either a) don't understand this or b) deliberately misinterpret this

To give a simple analogy, out of all the historians in the world, only a portion are qualified to give their views on e.g. a conclusion of the final figures of dead from the Holocaust

Among them the consensus is overwhelming

You use the denialist trick of highlighting all the rest who haven't specifically produced a final consensus in order to "muddy the waters" by suggesting a wide body of historians can't provide a conclusion

dense · 03-12-2018 1:25am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is an overwhelming consensus. You clearly either a) don't understand this or b) deliberately misinterpret this

To give a simple analogy, out of all the historians in the world, only a portion are qualified to give their views on e.g. a conclusion of the final figures of dead from the Holocaust

Among them the consensus is overwhelming

You use the denialist trick of highlighting all the rest who haven't specifically produced a final consensus in order to "muddy the waters" by suggesting a wide body of historians can't provide a conclusion

What study were you referring to when you mentioned 97%?

Did it analyse as many abstracts as the one I linked to, or mention as many scientists?

It couldn't demonstrate a consensus so I'm not sure what value citing a study looking at less research, involving fewer scientists can have?

Link to it please to demonstrate that you didn't make up the 97% figure and the global scientific consensus you think it demonstrates.

dense · 03-12-2018 1:30am

Akrasia wrote: »

Why are you posting fake graphs here?

The graph you've made shows Cook's study on it and and we've just seen that that study failed to demonstrate a scientific consensus on AGW.

We've done this before, the Doran one in your graphic interviewed just 80 scientists if I remember rightly. Most of them agreed about something.

The Oreskes 2004 one interviewed no scientists, looked at 90% less papers than Cook's study did, and "100%" does not appear anywhere in the text of the study.

Aside from the enterprising but failed Cook effort, the rest of them are ultimately just small scale Young Scientists type projects.

You don't often come across a scientist mentioning this "97% of scientists", and there is a reason for that.

I'll let you work out the reason for yourself.

Dohnjoe · 03-12-2018 2:24am

dense wrote: »

Why are you posting fake graphs here?

It hasn't been refuted. This thread is evidence how a solitary individual can keep a faulty argument going purely based on stamina and "getting the last word in"

Which has already been pointed out several times

Akrasia · 03-12-2018 9:20am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It hasn't been refuted. This thread is evidence how a solitary individual can keep a faulty argument going purely based on stamina and "getting the last word in"

Which has already been pointed out several times

It's gas when you think about it.
There have been 5 IPCC reports which are the biggest meta analysis documents in scientific history, taking thousands of papers and thousands of the most respected scientists and experts in their fields to review the best and most up to date science, over the course of years in a fully transparent process, and their reports don't just agree with the consensus on climate change, they literally define the consensus.

I've asked Dense has to find a single reputable scientific organisation who agrees with his/her/it's view on climate change and dense can't find a single one. So whatever about the consensus supporting the theory of climate change, there is a 100% scientific consensus that Dense is wrong.

And then Dense embarrasses dense'self by pretending that the UCD Science department statement on climate change isn't the official university position and instead wants some administrator's opinion on the subject.

It's like watching the dumbest person in the world trying to argue with a scientist about what causes rainbows in a sprinkler

dense · 03-12-2018 11:30am

Akrasia wrote: »

And then Dense embarrasses dense'self by pretending that the UCD Science department statement on climate change isn't the official university position and instead wants some administrator's opinion on the subject.

Please link to the document you're referring to.
No one can find UCD's official position policy on AGW that mirrors your alarmist hysteria.

All we could find was a paragraph from the University's "Earth Institute" that acknowledges that human activities have been "linked" to the warming of our planet and pointing out their need for a better understanding of the science involved.

Nobody would disagree that human activities have been linked (by people like yourself and Al Gore, and Bill McKibben) to the warming of the planet.

But as you have so succinctly explained yourself, there is no scientific consensus about how warm the planet actually is, how warm it was before humans began their "activities" that have been linked to the warming of the planet, or how warm the planet now should be:

Akrasia wrote: »

It's perfectly consistent for the IPCC to say we need to limit warming by 1.5c above pre-industrial levels and for there to be disagreement over what exact absolute temperature this represents

Akrasia · 03-12-2018 12:00pm

dense wrote: »

Please link to the document you're referring to.
No one can find UCD's official position policy on AGW that mirrors your alarmist hysteria.

For everyone who isn't living in an alternative universe
"Human activities, such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation have now been linked unequivocally to the warming of our planet. Temperature increases in certain regions of the globe will likely result in ice sheet reduction, increased flooding and more frequent extreme weather events."
http://www.ucd.ie/earth/research/climate/

All we could find was a paragraph from the University's "Earth Institute" that acknowledges that human activities have been "linked" to the warming of our planet and pointing out their need for a better understanding of the science involved.

Nobody would disagree that human activities have been linked (by people like yourself and Al Gore, and Bill McKibben) to the warming of the planet.

But as you have so succinctly explained yourself, there is no scientific consensus about how warm the planet actually is, how warm it was before humans began their "activities" that have been linked to the warming of the planet, or how warm the planet now should be:

Lets just add the word unequivocal to the growing list of words Dense doesn't understand. It's amazing that dense can take the exact opposite meaning from a paragraph that states there is an unequivocal link between climate change and human activities. Unequivocal literally means unambiguous, and leaving zero doubt.

dense · 03-12-2018 9:45pm

Akrasia wrote: »

For everyone who isn't living in an alternative universe
"Human activities, such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation have now been linked unequivocally to the warming of our planet. Temperature increases in certain regions of the globe will likely result in ice sheet reduction, increased flooding and more frequent extreme weather events."
http://www.ucd.ie/earth/research/climate/

Lets just add the word unequivocal to the growing list of words Dense doesn't understand. It's amazing that dense can take the exact opposite meaning from a paragraph that states there is an unequivocal link between climate change and human activities. Unequivocal literally means unambiguous, and leaving zero doubt.

Let's keep this as simple as possible, although it's fun looking at you digging yourself into another hole.

I've just said there's zero doubt/its unequivocal that some people have linked global warming to human activities, or, if you like, linked human activities to global warming.

You seem to believe that "linked to" has the same meaning as "caused by", otherwise you wouldn't be hanging on to it like a dog with a bone.
It doesn't, and the words, as you can see, are not interchangeable.

Any other big words causing you trouble, just PM me.

ohnonotgmail · 04-12-2018 10:19am

dense wrote: »

Let's keep this as simple as possible, although it's fun looking at you digging yourself into another hole.

I've just said there's zero doubt/its unequivocal that some people have linked global warming to human activities, or, if you like, linked human activities to global warming.

You seem to believe that "linked to" has the same meaning as "caused by", otherwise you wouldn't be hanging on to it like a dog with a bone.
It doesn't, and the words, as you can see, are not interchangeable.

Any other big words causing you trouble, just PM me.

It is quite clear what they are saying. Your pathetic attempt at sarcasm shows up your lack of any credible response.

Doctor Jimbob · 04-12-2018 1:02pm

dense wrote: »

Let's keep this as simple as possible, although it's fun looking at you digging yourself into another hole.

I've just said there's zero doubt/its unequivocal that some people have linked global warming to human activities, or, if you like, linked human activities to global warming.

You seem to believe that "linked to" has the same meaning as "caused by", otherwise you wouldn't be hanging on to it like a dog with a bone.
It doesn't, and the words, as you can see, are not interchangeable.

Any other big words causing you trouble, just PM me.

It's common in science to use language like "linked" rather than "caused" - science tends to avoid absolute statements when possible. You'd know that if you had an understanding of the topic beyond Junior Cert level. This is up there with the "only a theory" arguments against evolution.

Digging a hole indeed.

ollkiller · 04-12-2018 1:12pm

I applaud all of you who are still engaging with Dense after 70 pages. How you have the patience is beyond me.

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

Comments