Global warming - What's your "opinion"?

[larus]

Thanks.

So yes, please carry on caring for the environment

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

We're in an ice age now.

Coming to it's end? then that will be global warming? naturally? I suppose

 

[Bakero]

I was referring to the question in your OP. It frames the debate and implies anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist.

In my opinion someone who disagrees with 97% of scientists based on what they've read on the internet probably is on the conspiracy theorist spectrum.

 

[W.C.]

My opinion is you have to be wilully ignorant ****ing moron to not accept what virtually all scientists say is happening.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

In my opinion someone who disagrees with 97% of scientists based on what they've read on the internet probably is on the conspiracy theorist spectrum.

I'm on your side of the climate change debate but I disagree with your view on scientists. There are many times in history when scientific consensus has been challenged and turned around. Carrying out a poll of scientists' current views proves nothing. If it did then that would be the end of scientific progress. To carry this debate you need to explore the issues not seek to root out
dissenters.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

In my opinion someone who disagrees with 97% of scientists based on what they've read on the internet probably is on the conspiracy theorist spectrum.

Scientists have only just discovered things and it keeps happening they also get proven wrong........

Another point to note is that Science (until the mid 1990s) could not explain or accept the notion of a rouge wave at sea for example,a wave 100feet high,they do now.....they might 100 years from now explain and accept the notion that climate change is after all complete in it's natural causes.

 

[Bakero]

I'm on your side of the climate change debate but I disagree with your view on scientists. There are many times in history when scientific consensus has been challenged and turned around. Carrying out a poll of scientists' current views proves nothing. If it did then that would be the end of scientific progress. To carry this debate you need to explore the issues not seek to root out
dissenters.

I agree ti a certain extent but when the dissenters refer to "globull warming" and refuse to cite any sources it's hard to take them seriously.

 

[larus]

Nasa are the green lobby? Where are you getting your information from. Care to post some links?

Re. 97% - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf

One example of the analysis of the 97% claim (note - nothing to do with the science, but the production of the 97% statistic which gets quoted).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/


Sample from the article:

I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or scientists) that have used the phrase ‘97% of climate scientists, have actually read the original source of the cited survey.

“Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.

There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not, but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

I agree ti a certain extent but when the dissenters refer to "globull warming" and refuse to cite any sources it's hard to take them seriously.

here is a source- i don't however refer to it as globull or gullible or any other than global
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/#2262d16355a4
new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

I always think of this when i think of science

 

[seagulls4ever]

What are the consequences if we take actions recommended by scientists but they turn out to be wrong?

What are the consequences if we do nothing and scientists turn out to be right?

I think we should probably listen to the overwhelming scientific consensus.

 

[larus]

What are the consequences if we take actions recommended by scientists but they turn out to be wrong?

What are the consequences if we do nothing and scientists turn out to be right?

I think we should probably listen to the overwhelming scientific consensus.

I agree. But then the scientists should be polled anonymously with the freedom to speak their mind. There are numerous examples where people have spoken out against the doctrine of AGW and then lose funding/positions.

 

[daveinprague]

The world has been pumping crap into the atmosphere for the last 300 years or so, to think it will not have an effect is a bit barmy.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

The world has been pumping crap into the atmosphere for the last 300 years or so, to think it will not have an effect is a bit barmy.

I suppose that is true,it's also true that some things are capable of being overcome-


Although the answer to as why Hiroshima is not another Chernobyl lays within the realms of science.

 

[portlock seagull]

It's is going to mean disaster because less land, more refugees, not enough food etc etc = war (to see who gets what remains). That's the traditional solution in our species DNA. So if it isn't the toxic air, tidal waves or drought that gets you it's likely to be a bullet. Our species really is a plague on this earth. Ow, and being in a minority in terms of demographics, plus fundamentally weak and unwarlike we're not in the best position to survive when the inevitable happens.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

It's is going to mean disaster because less land, more refugees, not enough food etc etc = war (to see who gets what remains). That's the traditional solution in our species DNA. So if it isn't the toxic air, tidal waves or drought that gets you it's likely to be a bullet. Our species really is a plague on this earth. Ow, and being in a minority in terms of demographics, plus fundamentally weak and unwarlike we're not in the best position to survive when the inevitable happens.

We still on for promotion tho?

 

[Bakero]

It's is going to mean disaster because less land, more refugees, not enough food etc etc = war (to see who gets what remains). That's the traditional solution in our species DNA. So if it isn't the toxic air, tidal waves or drought that gets you it's likely to be a bullet. Our species really is a plague on this earth. Ow, and being in a minority in terms of demographics, plus fundamentally weak and unwarlike we're not in the best position to survive when the inevitable happens.

The UK is unwarlike? We love a war.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Not read through the whole thread.
But the way is see it is this.
The Earth is constantly evolving, this country alone has been iced over and desert in the past and used to belong to a land mass somewhere near the equator.
Large parts of our planet is water, desert, forest,tundra,plains and scrub.
The largest places that emit C02 and other nasties like Beijing for example are in effect letting out small puffs in comparison, the atmosphere also has a natural way of dispensing with the omissions.
The planet is obviously warming up, the difference in our winter weather is obvious, but i believe that it is mainly down to mother nature.
Now i am not saying that we are helping it along with industrialisation etc but although we have millions more cars and factories many are a lot cleaner than they were in the past.
We no longer burn dirty coal in our fireplaces compared to many years ago (how come this was not happening when every house and factory was chucking out thick black coal smoke.
We have lead free fuel.
We use gas and electricity in industry more than ever.
We have pollution measures and awareness and countries that are extremely anti pollution.
Poor air quality is not the same as global warming, that is just something that happens in many cities and can be down to weather conditions as well as vehicles etc (but does need sorting out) one decent day of the wind in the right direction and it goes away. But i will say that in certain cities it is awful.
So, i sometimes think that these scientists are on a bit of an ego trip and trying to justify their job and pay.
Sure we should take measures to slow down global warming and any anti pollution measure is a good thing, but i believe we are heating up naturally and no matter what we try and do, you aint gonna stop mother nature from doin her thang.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

too much manipulation of data, unverified models, political interference to throw "scientific fact" into it. probability rules environment science, not hard empirical evidence from repeatable experiment.

Jesus. This displays an utterly shocking level of ignorance about environmental study and science as a whole.

PS Is it really true you work in healthcare metrics?

 

[Two Professors]

So far the poll results are EXACTLY what you'd expect from a left leaning city that elects a bloody Green MP.

Global warming periods, like global ice-ages are cyclical. In due course, but not in any of our lifetimes, we'll start moving towards another ice age .... and then the lefties and Greens of the future will be blaming the world population for not burning enough fossil fuels to keep the world warm.

Saves me answering-perfick!