What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
The assertion that “the majority agree with us” is simply not compelling. The 97% number is necessary to close off the debate, which is the objective.
Click to expand...
Whoever said 97% was sufficient to close off debate? For all I know, those who are looking for an excuse to deny AGW will grasp at 0.01% disagreement to say that 99.99% is simply not compelling. What is the lower limit of agreement that people should find compelling?
 
Theo520 said:
But they are being paid to publish and are logically expected to be supportive of their cash flow.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you’re talking about. My original link to which I referred links to a science journal (not a mainstream, money making rag).

Here it is again:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Theo520 said:
Your links showed a significant minority were not in concurrence.
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t know what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:
The so called GHE is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption which is built into all of the models and thus all the models continue to fail.
They take a cold Earth and compute its BB temp based solely on energy (name removed by moderator)ut fron the Sun and ascribe the difference between that temp and observed temp to the GHE.
In reality the Earth is a hot ball of molten elements and gases that has cooled to its current temp despite 4 Billion years of solar (name removed by moderator)ut and it will continue to cool as the 2nd law of thermodynamics demands…
Because their models thus look at Earth temp development backwards, they will continue to fail.
Increasing co2 and h2o at the expense of o2 will cool the planet not warm it.
 
I suggest you look at what the majority of scientists say on such matters and never mind the politics.
twoshoes said:
I’ve lived on the water for 40 years and it hasn’t risen an inch.
Click to expand...
Your personal observations do not overthrow mountains of scientific data. This isn’t how science works.
 
Thete is zero scientific data sipporting a colder atmosphere warming a warmer surface.
There is lots of modeling and conjecture, but they have to keep tweaking the models because observations dont match model projections. Its ‘epicycles’ all over again, because the whole hypothesis is fundamentally flawed.
 
stavros388 said:
I don’t know what you’re talking about. My original link to which I referred links to a science journal (not a mainstream, money making rag).

Here it is again:
ShieldSquare Captcha
Click to expand...
They are paid through grants, they are paid to publish

These ‘publishers’ who are chasing grants the most are much more avid believers in the ‘cause’ than their compatriots who publish less frequently, or not at all. Publishing means you are paid, it doesn’t mean you are inherently smarter. You should ask why yourself why the larger sample of each survey effort is not in agreement completely.

From your link
66% consensus - Gallup
40% consensus - Bray and von Storch 1996
53% consensus - Bray and von Storch 2003
82% consensus - Doran and Zimmerman
66% consensus - Anderegg et al
84% consensus - Farnsworth and Lichter

the survey efforts show majority agreement but definitely not 97% consensus.
 
Last edited:
nfinke said:
I don’t doubt that humans are contributing to a change in climate, but it’s very hard to believe that it is as serious as they all say. Seeing as every few years they have been coming out with something saying “WE HAVE ONLY A FEW YEARS TO STOP CATASTROPHIC CHANGE”
Click to expand...
the frame of mind required to believe/understand the big picture is something I never really gave much thought to until I started this thread,… as someone who was formally educated and had a deep interest in science, I mistakenly thought everyone looked at issue as a physicist and/or at least understood the basic science (my bad)

given lots of info to process by human beings ill-equipped (i.e. not intellectually or emotionally prepared) to deal w/ climate change,… with 20/20 hindsight I now have a appreciation for the psychology of different points of view

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

and more specifically the psychology of climate science denial


to understand why the urgency,… basically one has to consider there is delay effect,… IOW
…as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001
Click to expand...
to give a concrete example that people might better relate to, let’s consider the second round of power outages begins here in my home state of california amid wildfire concerns


basically if one seriously looked at the science, one would conclude that the effects we are seeing today is the result of CO2 being released decades ago

so looking forward if trends continue the wildfire concerns people have today in my neck of the woods,…


most likely will be considered pretty tame (in the future, looking back)

in other parts of the country, the CC problem isn’t wildfires but flooding (which can no longer be denied)
Florida GOP leaders finally utter ‘sea level rise,’ lament ‘lost decade’

For the first time in a decade, a Florida Senate committee scheduled a meeting Monday to discuss the impact of climate change on the peninsula state.

What did senators learn?

“We lost a decade,’’ said Sen. Tom Lee, the Thonotosassa Republican who chairs the Committee on Infrastructure and Security.

www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article236215368.html
Click to expand...
as for delay due to CC denial and interwebs arguments,…
phaster said:
there are serious consequences for ignoring the various troublesome signs that science has revealed,…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I can love Pope Francis while disagreeing with him in his misguided crusade to push climate alarmism on the people. Climate alarmism has always been a means to push tighter controls onto people and the population.

Tbh, I think it’s ironic that the Pope pushes climate alarmism while flying in Air Pope One ( or whatever the name of the plane is) and encouraging bishops, reporters, and laity from around the world to fly to Rome for this Synod that just ended. Pope Francis will listen to abortionists like Jeffery Sachs, but not catholics when it comes to climate science.
 
I am not a scientist either. What I do know is:
A. smog effects our health
B. there is evidence that long before the first factory smoke stack there was vegetation in Antarctica.
C. The ocean garbage patches are real, and humans made them.

I do my bit on environmental stewardship where it makes sense. Separate and put out the recycling and doing thing where it makes sense. Using cloth napkins instead of paper ones. Combining trips and not washing partial loads in the wash machine or the dishwasher.

Sending a check to Green Peace isn’t on the table.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Ender:
The assertion that “the majority agree with us” is simply not compelling. The 97% number is necessary to close off the debate, which is the objective.
Click to expand...
Whoever said 97% was sufficient to close off debate? For all I know, those who are looking for an excuse to deny AGW will grasp at 0.01% disagreement to say that 99.99% is simply not compelling. What is the lower limit of agreement that people should find compelling?
Click to expand...
If someone had some tests done and there was a 90% agreement by medical experts that their health was in danger and that they needed to make some changes to their lifestyle, what do you think the prudent course of action would be? Especially if their health would improve anyway by taking their advice even if they were wrong.

What do you say to your kids? ‘Hey, these doctors need to convince people that they are sick just to stay in a job. I’ve had these symptoms before and nothing happened. I’m not going to change anything’.
 
Freddy said:
If someone had some tests done and there was a 90% agreement by medical experts…
Click to expand...
The analogy breaks down completely given that, unlike medical tests, there are zero tests that can be run to confirm AGW, and the whole point of ridiculing the Cook study was to show that there is no justification whatever for believing that any such consensus exists.
…their health was in danger and that they needed to make some changes to their lifestyle, what do you think the prudent course of action would be? Especially if their health would improve anyway by taking their advice even if they were wrong.
Click to expand...
This is an assumption; the whole point of the debate is to determine whether the cure is worse than the (supposed) disease. I don’t believe either statement is true - their health is not in danger and the “cure” would make things worse. Rather like bleeding patients a few hundred years ago…which apparently 90% of doctors thought was a good solution.
 
Yes, both of your points summarize how I feel. There are more important issues to me that make or break candidates when it comes to politics, but there is scientific consensus about the issue. Fighting environment efforts seems no different to me than fighting vaccines. God wants us to take care of the earth, so reducing pollution is great whether it is a matter of life or death for the planet or not.
 
How many real pollution problems could be addressed with all the resources being flushed down the co2 fake pollution sink hole?

How many millions will remain in or be forced into poverty by artificially raising the price of energy?

Bad policies built on bad science leads to bad outcomes… Eugenics anyone?

This whole climate change emergency charade is a propaganda war… Already hysterical followers are marching in the streets… There will be bloodshed…
 
Ender said:
40.png
Freddy:
If someone had some tests done and there was a 90% agreement by medical experts…
Click to expand...
The analogy breaks down completely given that, unlike medical tests, there are zero tests that can be run to confirm AGW, and the whole point of ridiculing the Cook study was to show that there is no justification whatever for believing that any such consensus exists.
…their health was in danger and that they needed to make some changes to their lifestyle, what do you think the prudent course of action would be? Especially if their health would improve anyway by taking their advice even if they were wrong.
Click to expand...
This is an assumption; the whole point of the debate is to determine whether the cure is worse than the (supposed) disease.
Click to expand...
It’s not a cure. You don’t cure bad habits. You simply change them for good ones. You change how you live. Just as if you were eating the wrong foods and drinking too much and not exercising and medical opinion was that you were in serious danger of shuffling off well before your alloted time.

But even if there was no disease, why would any sane person not want to live a more healthy life? Why not walk instead of taking the car? Why not insulate your pipework so you save energy and money? Why not install solar panels if it’s cheaper in the long run? Why not vote for those who will invest in renewable energy?

Even if there was no global warming, all the suggestions being made are so mind numbingly obvious as a means to a sustainable lifestyle that I am completely and utterly bemused by anyone who could suggest that it’s not something that they could support.
 
PhilipJames said:
How many real pollution problems could be addressed with all the resources being flushed down the co2 fake pollution sink hole?

How many millions will remain in or be forced into poverty by artificially raising the price of energy?

Bad policies built on bad science leads to bad outcomes… Eugenics anyone?

This whole climate change emergency charade is a propaganda war… Already hysterical followers are marching in the streets… There will be bloodshed…
Click to expand...
Forced into poverty…eugenics…emergency charade…propaganda war…hysterical followers…bloodshed…

Wow.

We are talking about renewable energy. Living a more sustainable lifestyle. Ramping up the rhetoric to that extent completely removes any chance for a reasonable discussion.
 
“…We don’t often smuggle environmental messages into militaristic language, though some people who are not me think we should…”
Click to expand...
Hail a healthy climate, hail our work towards it stability, hail victory.
 
Freddy said:
Why not install solar panels if it’s cheaper in the long run?
Click to expand...
The cost of solar panels is not cheaper than traditional sources; it is significantly more expensive and can exist solely when it receives massive subsidies.
all the suggestions being made are so mind numbingly obvious as a means to a sustainable lifestyle that I am completely and utterly bemused by anyone who could suggest that it’s not something that they could support.
Click to expand...
You have no perception of the scale of things. Spain went deeply into “renewable” energy and ran up huge debts. Germany tried it and even their economy cannot sustain the subsidies involved.

 
So long as the ship continued to identify as ‘ship of theseus’ it is so.
Heraclitus and Plato were clearly bigots to even question it.
 
Apparently they are contemplating sin to address the environment. One wonders how it was not sin already.
 
To truly embrace Catholicism, we must let go of any hatred or idolization we have for a political party. We need not swallow every ounce of rhetoric to support candidates that most closely reflect our values.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top