| Saint Jiub 23.12.2016 15:06 |
I believe global warming is partially caused by man, but I feel the magnitude of the potential problem is exaggerated. Please note the following graph and comments from the NOAA: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/YearlySurfaceTempAnom1880-2010.jpg?itok=tCps1K4T Yearly surface temperatures since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. ... Me talking out of my lower orifice: 1880-1910 - Steady temperature trend 1910-1945 - Increasing temperature trend 1945-1975 - Steady temperature trend 1975-2000 - Increasing temperature trend 2000-2016 - Steady temperature trend Observed trend: Repeated cycle of 30 years of rising temperatures followed by 30 years of steady temperatures Therefore ergo ... The world can expect 15 more years of steady temperatures. "Settled Science"? ... Or the dangers of extrapolation? ... ... Please forgive me for providing one last link to a "fake news" (ie conservative) source: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422395/carly-fiorina-shows-how-address-left-climate-change-david-french I prefer to think that when the liberal left states indisputedly that the sky is falling ... That it might be a hailstorm. ... Finally here is a link from the lamestream media from a month ago suggesting that the near steady temperature over the past 18 years is ongoing and shows no signs of stopping. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html For those who cannot be bothered to read the article ... here is the main graph from that article (shiny picture): http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/26/23/3AC7B05800000578-0-image-a-79_1480203879647.jpg |
| BETA215 23.12.2016 16:06 |
Ha! |
| Oscar J 23.12.2016 16:23 |
That's a huge amount of conclusions for you to draw from one graph. Most conservatives in this subject, grasp every small stat that isn't alarming and ignore the thousand of facts that are. |
| Saint Jiub 24.12.2016 20:19 |
From the links I found, there is a 16% chance of the global warming pause of 1998 continuing past 2020. Of course those odds were calculated after 2015 was a record high (beating 1998). Since 2015, the world temperature took a 1 Celsius nosedive in 2016, as a result of El Nino ending suddenly, and La Nina starting ... so maybe the so-called odds (if accurate) of a continued global warming hiatus are somewhat higher? |
| YourValentine 25.12.2016 05:03 |
It's really frightening how people think they are smarter than the experts who have invested decades of learning and studying in a subject. It's also frightening how climate change deniers ignore the fact that the vast majority of experts really would have no advantage by "lying" about climate change while the deniers have clearly been funded by British Petroleum and others from the very start. So, who is the corrupt part in the discussion? It's easier to simply deny the facts and stop all efforts to make a change in ruining the living conditions for generations to come on this planet. Yes, let us keep up our destructive lifestyle and do nothing to preserve the resources of this planet for our children and grand children. Now that the USA has elected a climate change denier for President all hope is lost, anyway. |
| Costa86 25.12.2016 11:51 |
Um, no, sorry Panchgani I don't agree. If anything, we underestimated the effect of climate change, and things are worse than scientists estimated they would be. Climate change is the most important challenge the world faces. More important than economic tribulation, terrorism and migration. Climate change denialists (not including you with them) are the most dangerous people on earth. And we now have a climate change denialist as the leader of the free world. We could potentially be fucked. |
| Oscar J 25.12.2016 17:52 |
^ Good posts. |
| Saint Jiub 25.12.2016 19:29 |
Oscar J wrote: ^ Good posts. Thank you |
| tilomagnet 27.12.2016 07:11 |
YourValentine wrote: It's really frightening how people think they are smarter than the experts who have invested decades of learning and studying in a subject. It's also frightening how climate change deniers ignore the fact that the vast majority of experts really would have no advantage by "lying" about climate change while the deniers have clearly been funded by British Petroleum and others from the very start. So, who is the corrupt part in the discussion?Umm no, I dont agree. The so-called "climate change experts" make their living by spreading overexaggerations about human caused climate change. Also their research funds depend on such alarming "results". Personally, I dont deny human made climate change per se, but IMO the results of the various studies even by institutes that support the mainstream believe of human made climate change are often contradictory. IMO this topic is mostly used by mainstream media and politicians to detract from much more serious and urgent issues and its perfect to milk the taxpayer of his hard earned money. |
| Oscar J 27.12.2016 14:06 |
^ OK, so because "mainstream" (read established, non-extreme) media reports about the scientists findings, there must be some kind of agenda behind all of it. You don't need those damn "scientists" facts, because you have your own opinion. It's all a giant hoax to get your money. "The so-called "climate change experts" make their living by spreading overexaggerations about human caused climate change." Would you bet the future of our planet on this though? Do you have any evidence of your own that make you feel a hundred percent safe about ignoring the alarms about rising sea levels, climate catastrophes and collapsing eco-systems? "...results of the various studies even by institutes that support the mainstream believe of human made climate change are often contradictory. " Results of different studies almost always vary and contradict each other. That's one of the most fundamental basics of science for you. But rarely are scientists in agreement of anything to such a high degree as on this particular topic. Lastly it'd be interesting in what issues you think are more urgent to solve than something that potentially might affect every single person on earth. |
| Costa86 27.12.2016 15:32 |
Oscar J wrote: But rarely are scientists in agreement of anything to such a high degree as on this particular topic.Exactly. |
| YourValentine 28.12.2016 04:05 |
Thank you, Oscar J! I wonder at which point in history we regressed from acknowledging scientific facts into "mainstream belief" like facts are a matter of faith. As yet no climate change denier was able to make a logic case to explain how thousands of international scientists can actually conspire to lie about scientific facts only to ... what? Make a living? benefit from the climate change industry? To erect a green global terror regime? You are not a free spirit when you fall into the trap of a billion dollar petroleum industry. You are not a free thinker when you propagate absurd theories like truthers, birthers, climate change deniers do. When you need life saving surgery you won't go to an ignorant idiot who has a blog about the menace of modern medicine, you go to a surgeon who has learnt and studied and knows what he does. We should not hand over our future to conspiracy theorists. |
| tilomagnet 28.12.2016 08:04 |
So youre accusing others of following conspiracy theorists but apparently the villainous Petroleum industry is behind all those climate change deniers?! alright. Anyway, we need to realize that there has always been and will always be climate change. its a completely natural thing. problem is that there have been many episodes of faster and slower climate change, long before humans walked the earth, which means that its close to impossible to prove that there is indeed a more rapid climate change due to the industrial age. Its getting really laughable when polititicians set out to stop or halt climate change by reducing CO2 and other emissions. what is more urgent to me than climate change: refugee crisis and financial and economic crisis within the EU among others. |
| Saint Jiub 28.12.2016 14:32 |
I am not a climate change denier, I only stated the importance is exaggerated. The 97% "concensus" is based on a small subset of ACTIVELY PUBLISHING climate scientists who have predisposed bias toward continued funding of their work. The concensus amongst American meteorologists is merely 67%. "Last month, a new survey of members of the American Meteorological Society confirmed as much. It turns out that just about an equal percentage of meteorologists accept that human activity is the primary cause climate change (67 percent) as the general public (65 percent, from the similarly worded Gallup poll)" link |
| The Real Wizard 28.12.2016 15:46 |
Panchgani wrote: The concensus amongst American meteorologists is merely 67%.If you actually read the study: 67% say it's entirely caused by our species, with a further 21% saying it's at least partially caused by our species. That makes 88%. However - 97% of climate scientists (i.e. the actual experts who have been actively researching this topic daily for decades) agree that it's man made. Why cherry-pick for lower numbers? Well, anyone with scientific literacy knows the answer - it's called confirmation bias. Your inability to understand science isn't an argument against it. |
| The Real Wizard 28.12.2016 16:05 |
tilomagnet wrote: So youre accusing others of following conspiracy theorists but apparently the villainous Petroleum industry is behind all those climate change deniers?!Obviously not all of them, but certainly many of the loudest voices. They have hired the same people tobacco companies hired in the 60s to convince the public that cigarettes didn't cause cancer. All we need to do is look at birds' changing migratory patterns and the declining number of polar bears to know if climate change is real or not. Or maybe even talk to a few people in equatorial island nations - the dry season was 5 months early in Seychelles last year. The cattle industry alone is largely to blame - it amounts to more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the world's transport combined. |
| Saint Jiub 28.12.2016 18:40 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Panchgani wrote: The concensus amongst American meteorologists is merely 67%.If you actually read the study: 67% say it's entirely caused by our species, with a further 21% saying it's at least partially caused by our species. That makes 88%. However - 97% of climate scientists (i.e. the actual experts who have been actively researching this topic daily for decades) agree that it's man made. Why cherry-pick for lower numbers? Well, anyone with scientific literacy knows the answer - it's called confirmation bias. Your inability to understand science isn't an argument against it. ... Uh no. 67% of meteorologists say it's MOSTLY caused by our species. 97 % of CURRENTLY PUBLISHING climate scientists (ie currently funded) say it is mostly caused by our species I am not sure why you choose to EXAGGERATE? ... perhaps it is confirmation bias? ... or perhaps it is because you are merely a musician. |
| Saint Jiub 28.12.2016 19:02 |
The Real Wizard wrote:The cattle industry alone is largely to blame - it amounts to more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the world's transport combined. Myth ... Not even close 14 to 18 % of human greenhouse gas emissions is due to animal agriculture (including lamb ... not just cattle) while fossil fuels account for 60% (Transportation is 27%). https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html |
| Holly2003 29.12.2016 05:18 |
Publishing in academic journals does not necessarily equate to "funding" but it does equate to "peer reviewed" i.e. quality control. So the fact that almost all of the research published in reputable academic journals is subject to peer review should make you happy. But if your mind is already made up then it will lead to conspiracy theories about "funding" in an attempt to avoid the majority consensus viewpoint. |
| Oscar J 29.12.2016 06:00 |
Panchgani wrote: I am not a climate change denier, I only stated the importance is exaggerated. The 97% "concensus" is based on a small subset of ACTIVELY PUBLISHING climate scientists who have predisposed bias toward continued funding of their work. The concensus amongst American meteorologists is merely 67%. "Last month, a new survey of members of the American Meteorological Society confirmed as much. It turns out that just about an equal percentage of meteorologists accept that human activity is the primary cause climate change (67 percent) as the general public (65 percent, from the similarly worded Gallup poll)" http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/new-survey-shows-ams-members-positions-on-climate-change/ Do they have to be American to be credible? And just a meteorologist isn't nearly as qualified as specialised scientists within the subject. Not that 67 % isn't still a strong majority, which makes this an even worse argument. |
| The Real Wizard 29.12.2016 19:55 |
Panchgani wrote:"Merely" a musician? I'll ignore your patronizing attitude towards the creative industry, and instead ask - are you suggesting that one's profession somehow disqualifies them in a discussion on climate change? Never mind the glaring irony that this obviously would disqualify you as well.The Real Wizard wrote:... Uh no. 67% of meteorologists say it's MOSTLY caused by our species. 97 % of CURRENTLY PUBLISHING climate scientists (ie currently funded) say it is mostly caused by our species I am not sure why you choose to EXAGGERATE? ... perhaps it is confirmation bias? ... or perhaps it is because you are merely a musician.Panchgani wrote: The concensus amongst American meteorologists is merely 67%.If you actually read the study: 67% say it's entirely caused by our species, with a further 21% saying it's at least partially caused by our species. That makes 88%. However - 97% of climate scientists (i.e. the actual experts who have been actively researching this topic daily for decades) agree that it's man made. Why cherry-pick for lower numbers? Well, anyone with scientific literacy knows the answer - it's called confirmation bias. Your inability to understand science isn't an argument against it. And nice dig at climate scientists by pointing out that they're funded - as if that has anything to do with the quality of their work. Discrediting something because there's money involved - isn't that a loony left position? I thought you were a conservative... Anyone with half a brain can see through your bush league debate tactics. You really aren't as smart as you think you are. And no matter how much selective data you attempt to cite and skew, you're not going to convince educated adults that climate change isn't real to the extent that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it is. |
| The Real Wizard 29.12.2016 19:56 |
Panchgani wrote:Ahh - I stand corrected then.The Real Wizard wrote:Myth ... Not even close 14 to 18 % of human greenhouse gas emissions is due to animal agriculture (including lamb ... not just cattle) while fossil fuels account for 60% (Transportation is 27%). https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.htmlThe cattle industry alone is largely to blame - it amounts to more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the world's transport combined. |
| Sebastian 30.12.2016 09:21 |
Costa86 wrote: If anything, we underestimated the effect of climate change, and things are worse than scientists estimated they would be.Exactly. |