Nonsense.
There is no evidence to back up that claim.
For instance, here in Canada, scientists are not allowed to speak out at all in general, but speaking out about climate change will get the PMO's boys in shorts on your case pronto.
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
There is no evidence to back up that claim.
For instance, here in Canada, scientists are not allowed to speak out at all in general, but speaking out about climate change will get the PMO's boys in shorts on your case pronto.
You realize your feeble attempt to be witty falls kind of flat when you actually open your eyes and look at the world?
Places like Brazil have destroyed far more of the world's trees than all of Europe & North America combined...
That’s hard to believe considering we in North America have cut down almost all the old growth forests. Trees with 20' diameter trunks as show here are a thing of the past. We now have mostly wood lots and tree farms.
The US alone has deforested about 1,000,000 square kilometers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_by_region Would be surprised if Brazil has deforested more area.
My feeble attempt at humor was to point out that we are not in a position to point fingers. We likely spend more on gas for our cars than most people on the planet earn, add home heating and cooling, food, etc, and our carbon footprint is fairly big.
Note Brazil is way down the list based on carbon emissions per capita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Add that we in North America are the ones buying a good part of the Brazilian beef raised on the land that was once the Amazon forest.
I'll point out again: the phrase "the science is settled" is the least scientific statement you could possibly make.
Whether you believe in AGW or not, on a scientific level the fact that there are people who question it is a good thing. That's how it's supposed to work. Science is a process, not a product. It only works if you treat it like a process. The self-correction built into it only works if you treat it as a process.
It's a good thing that there's debate about AGW.
From a policy approach, should we be more careful about our pollution, in all its forms? Of course we should. We all live on the film of a soap bubble in a universe that is inimical to our survival outside of that film (as far as we know and for practical purposes as far as we can reach). We should protect and preserve this little bubble we live on. But if you have to resort to hyperbole and bullshit (either for or against AGW) to make your case, then your case is weak. You're playing a propaganda game instead of making a legitimate case for your approach.
Personally, I think humans contribute to climate change. I'm not prepared to say how much or how little. I think the models are, at best, about as accurate as computer systems that predict sporting events. There's both too much data (GIGO) and not enough (accurate and precise* information on long term climate going back tens of thousands of years). Yes, we have data on the latter, but let's not pretend it's something we could ever base major decisions on if it weren't for politics. Or to put it another way: would any of the AGW die-hard supporters give up half their income based on that data? Because that's what you're asking at least some other people to do.
What is "normal" temperature? What is the baseline? Climate is, by its nature, a dynamic and shifting thing. If we were to demand a return to the mean global temperature for the last 30,000 years (as best as we can tell), summer in Florida would look like winter in Toronto. That is the reason for the (political) suspicion of AGW: the milestones keep shifting and moving as a response to political demands (if they weren't, the Third World wouldn't be getting the pass that it is) rather than scientific ones.
The science is worth discussing. The politics is dirty as hell and messier than that.
*Accuracy vs precision (just in case it needs to be spelled out):
Accurate: "it was cold in Toronto on January 3rd, 437 BCE", and it was actually cold in Toronto on that day.
Precise: "it was -23.4 degrees C at 16:47.63 GMT at this intersection in what would be Toronto on Januray 34d, 437 BCE"
Accurate and Precise: "it was -23.4 degrees C at 16:47.63 GMT at this intersection in what would be Toronto on Januray 34d, 437 BCE", and it actually was that, at that time and place.
We don't have any of that information back farther than, what, 150 years max for that kind of precise and accurate data? If you saw a temperature recording of 22 degrees C for July 16th, 1705 from a beaver trapper in Montreal back then, how much are you willing to bet on the accuracy of that measurement?
Whether you believe in AGW or not, on a scientific level the fact that there are people who question it is a good thing. That's how it's supposed to work. Science is a process, not a product. It only works if you treat it like a process. The self-correction built into it only works if you treat it as a process.
It's a good thing that there's debate about AGW.
From a policy approach, should we be more careful about our pollution, in all its forms? Of course we should. We all live on the film of a soap bubble in a universe that is inimical to our survival outside of that film (as far as we know and for practical purposes as far as we can reach). We should protect and preserve this little bubble we live on. But if you have to resort to hyperbole and bullshit (either for or against AGW) to make your case, then your case is weak. You're playing a propaganda game instead of making a legitimate case for your approach.
Personally, I think humans contribute to climate change. I'm not prepared to say how much or how little. I think the models are, at best, about as accurate as computer systems that predict sporting events. There's both too much data (GIGO) and not enough (accurate and precise* information on long term climate going back tens of thousands of years). Yes, we have data on the latter, but let's not pretend it's something we could ever base major decisions on if it weren't for politics. Or to put it another way: would any of the AGW die-hard supporters give up half their income based on that data? Because that's what you're asking at least some other people to do.
What is "normal" temperature? What is the baseline? Climate is, by its nature, a dynamic and shifting thing. If we were to demand a return to the mean global temperature for the last 30,000 years (as best as we can tell), summer in Florida would look like winter in Toronto. That is the reason for the (political) suspicion of AGW: the milestones keep shifting and moving as a response to political demands (if they weren't, the Third World wouldn't be getting the pass that it is) rather than scientific ones.
The science is worth discussing. The politics is dirty as hell and messier than that.
*Accuracy vs precision (just in case it needs to be spelled out):
Accurate: "it was cold in Toronto on January 3rd, 437 BCE", and it was actually cold in Toronto on that day.
Precise: "it was -23.4 degrees C at 16:47.63 GMT at this intersection in what would be Toronto on Januray 34d, 437 BCE"
Accurate and Precise: "it was -23.4 degrees C at 16:47.63 GMT at this intersection in what would be Toronto on Januray 34d, 437 BCE", and it actually was that, at that time and place.
We don't have any of that information back farther than, what, 150 years max for that kind of precise and accurate data? If you saw a temperature recording of 22 degrees C for July 16th, 1705 from a beaver trapper in Montreal back then, how much are you willing to bet on the accuracy of that measurement?
Even if you ignore predictions, which have been quite accurate, there are a couple of very quick points that should sway you.Personally, I think humans contribute to climate change. I'm not prepared to say how much or how little. I think the models are, at best, about as accurate as computer systems that predict sporting events. There's both too much data (GIGO) and not enough (accurate and precise* information on long term climate going back tens of thousands of years). Yes, we have data on the latter, but let's not pretend it's something we could ever base major decisions on if it weren't for politics. Or to put it another way: would any of the AGW die-hard supporters give up half their income based on that data? Because that's what you're asking at least some other people to do.
What is "normal" temperature? What is the baseline? Climate is, by its nature, a dynamic and shifting thing. If we were to demand a return to the mean global temperature for the last 30,000 years (as best as we can tell), summer in Florida would look like winter in Toronto. That is the reason for the (political) suspicion of AGW: the milestones keep shifting and moving as a response to political demands (if they weren't, the Third World wouldn't be getting the pass that it is) rather than scientific ones.
1) how many times has the world hit 400ppm CO2 before
2) what was the climate like then
3) has there ever been a period where the earth warmed as quickly as it has now?
Answer those questions and you might get a better sense of the issues.
Because realistically, the IPCC reports are kept very conservative in their predictions.
Nonsense. The "97% consensus" is a fairy tale. Deal with it.No its not, its backed up by five studies.
Let's probe this in a little more detail.Has there ever been a period where the earth warmed as quickly as it has now?
You've been all over the map on this, so give us your final answer. Was the warming that occurred in the period from 1920 to 1940 primarily due to:
1) Human activity?
or
2) Natural causes?
I look forward to your answer.
I love this completely idiotic line of reasoning. You don't like what the experts in the field say so you want every schmuck that ever held a test tube included because it makes the numbers better fit your preconceived ideas....
As for the 73% figure (which you only get after you remove 87 per cent of the respondents), that is a "strong consensus"? :Eek:
....
That is what makes you a conspiracy theorist. You already have decided on the 'truth' so you make up idiotic excuses to avoid what the scientific community says.
And if I was in a Princess Bride poison situation and 73% of experts say one cup is poisoned, 20% say that the same cup is somewhat poison, I doubt I'd believe the other 7% who say it's not poison.
Ah, it's a conspiracy.The majority of climate scientists are neutral on the issue or afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals such as losing funding...
The scientific community doesn't have repercussions like you imagine. Yes they can lose their funding butt here are many funders who want results to look like humans had no impact. In fact one of the major scientists behind the solar theory was recently exposed as providing (in his own words) deliverable for the oil industry (and yes, for that he deserves ridicule).
I agree with that.I'll point out again: the phrase "the science is settled" is the least scientific statement you could possibly make....
But some people act like we know nothing and that is is also very unscientific. There is also a big difference between scientists investigating and looking for contrary evidence and industry looking for an excuse to protect profits or to politicians trying to capitalize oin distrust of science to score points.
You are full of shit.Nonsense. The "97% consensus" is a fairy tale. Deal with it.
5 studies:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
And check the link above for the list of serious scientific agencies that support the consensus.
You are the one pushing a fairy tale.
You probably can't even come up with 100 legit climatologist 'deniers'.
Because you are full of shit.
I agree with your statement as well. The corollary is also true: politicians who use people's ignorance of the science to score points and push policies that are stupid and pointless.I agree with that.
But some people act like we know nothing and that is is also very unscientific. There is also a big difference between scientists investigating and looking for contrary evidence and industry looking for an excuse to protect profits or to politicians trying to capitalize oin distrust of science to score points.
Example: energy saving homes. It doesn't work. Oh, it should work, engineering-wise. It doesn't work with actual people. The evidence from California indicates that newer, energy efficient homes use as much electrical power as older, energy inefficient homes. The owners set the A/C at a lower temperature point or use more electronics, etc. The "solution" is to make energy more expensive. That is politically unlikely.
So you have one "side" of the political spectrum saying there isn't a problem and not wanting to do anything, and the other "side" of the political spectrum saying there's a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE problem and then pushing "solutions" that wouldn't actually accomplish anything if there is a problem.
They're all assholes. They're all hypocrites. If it makes you feel better to be on the "side" that is "good" because "we're trying, dammit, we're trying to do the right thing!!!" while wasting everyone's time and efforts, bully for you. But it's silly and bullshit.
We have more and more energy efficient cars, homes, and businesses. And somehow, the energy use keeps going up and up and up. With this much horseshit, there's gotta be a pony around here, somewhere.
This reminds me of a story that happened no so long ago. There was a doctor that claimed that bacteria caused stomach ulcers, i know it is absurd because everyone including doctors know that acid is what causes stomach ulcers. So this stupid doctor, was shunned and ridiculed so much that he could not find work in the US or Canada, so he had to move to australia to practice, which I think is fine because stupid doctors with crackpot ideas should be shamed and shunned. Then ........ This stupid doctor ends up getting a nobel prize for his work on bacteria and stomach ulcers.
Furthermore, nobody believed in relativity until years after Einstein published his papers when eddington made his observations of the orbit of mercury. When Tesla set out to invent the AC motor, everyone told him that it was a fool's errand and such a motor was impossible.
Furthermore, nobody believed in relativity until years after Einstein published his papers when eddington made his observations of the orbit of mercury. When Tesla set out to invent the AC motor, everyone told him that it was a fool's errand and such a motor was impossible.
On its website, NASA had no qualms about listing the "schmucks" with the test tubes as leading experts on man-made global warming. Nor did Naomi Oreskes have any such reservations.I love this completely idiotic line of reasoning. You don't like what the experts in the field say so you want every schmuck that ever held a test tube included because it makes the numbers better fit your preconceived ideas.
Indeed, if it was felt that more than 85% of the members have no expertise on the subject, why bother conducting the survey?
The reality is the alarmist who did the survey had spent too much time believing his own headlines. He was convinced he would get results that help score political points by confirming support for the "consensus."
When the results actually helped confirm that the "97% consensus" is a fairy tale, the majority of members suddenly lost their "expert" status.
You've never looked at those studies. Not one of them has any evidence of a "consensus."You are full of shit.
5 studies:
The fact that the Cook paper (we can't dignify it by calling it a study) is pure garbage has been well documented. In the case of Doran and Zimmerman, putting aside the huge issues with the way the "experts" were separated out (the bogus consensus claim is based on just 77 of more than 3,000 responses), the survey never asked respondents (including the special 77) anything about the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
Now, let's get back on track. We still need to know your final position on the warming that occurred in the period from 1920 to 1940.
Was the increase in the Earth's temperature in the period from 1920 to 1940 primarily due to:
1) Human activity?
or
2) Natural causes?
Are you calling NASA liars?You've never looked at those studies. Not one of them has any evidence of a "consensus."
Are you claiming that you are smarter then NASA?
The effects of climate change have been felt for the last 150 or so years. In the last 50 years its been the primary forcing. For the first 50 years or so it was a forcing, but probably not primary, in the 50 middle years its a little less clear. I personally haven't done enough research on the matter and read through those chapters of the IPCC report. And unlike you, won't make comments unless I've done my homework.Was the increase in the Earth's temperature in the period from 1920 to 1940 primarily due to:
1) Human activity?
or
2) Natural causes?
Why don't you go read the chapters and find out what their claims are, then with your ever so much smarter then NASA expertise, prove they are wrong.
Sound fair?
The effects of climate change have been felt for the last 150 or so years.
What do you base that statement on?
The famous graph on the NASA page makes little sense. How can 4 independent studies come up with the same graph points within 0.05 Celsius over 100 years ago, unless they are all using the same data sets. If they are using the same data then would expect a 0.5 Celsius average change in temperature could be as easily explained by the changes in methods and equipment used to measure temperature over the last 150 years. Think we are being played a bit by NASA when they post that graph and say there is a consensus.
Having a consensus is not so meaningful if all the scientists are given the same data sets to work with. If some used polar core samples, some use coral growth, some used measured temperatures etc and they all came up with a similar trend on a graph it would be more meaningful. Problem is, would expect there is no way to measure a 0.05 or even a 0.5 Celsius temperature change 100 years ago using different methods.
So obviously not man made then,...right,...???The effects of climate change have been felt for the last 150 or so years.
FAST
Interesting.The effects of climate change have been felt for the last 150 or so years. In the last 50 years its been the primary forcing. For the first 50 years or so it was a forcing, but probably not primary...
On May 9, when I said the warming that occurred in the period from 1920 to 1940 was clearly due to natural variants, you responded by saying I was "really stupid" and "have no understanding of science or history" (post #48).
You followed that up with a clear assertion in post #50 that man-made CO2 was the "primary cause" of warming in that period.
Now, you admit that I was right.
It is a serious understatement to say that you "haven't done enough research" on the warming that occurred in the 20th century. You don't know what you're talking about at all.
Because it's the side that is backed with better science. I used to be drawn to solar activity being a significant player but eventually found the theory lacking. The theory that human CO2 is a major cause of climate change is well supported though far from perfect. At least it is the best supported theory currently out there and that is why it deserves support. Politicians and corporations will play all sorts of games but that doesn't change the science....
They're all assholes. They're all hypocrites. If it makes you feel better to be on the "side" that is "good" because...
As I said, excuses for sticking with your preconceptions.On its website, NASA had no qualms about listing the "schmucks" with the test tubes as leading experts on man-made global warming. Nor did Naomi Oreskes have any such reservations.
Indeed, if it was felt that more than 85% of the members have no expertise on the subject, why bother conducting the survey?
The reality is the alarmist who did the survey had spent too much time believing his own headlines. He was convinced he would get results that help score political points by confirming support for the "consensus."
When the results actually helped confirm that the "97% consensus" is a fairy tale, the majority of members suddenly lost their "expert" status.
What a surprise -- more insults, no substance.As I said, excuses for sticking with your preconceptions.
As much as you don't like it, the facts are all on my side.
