Global warming - What's your "opinion"?

[The Clamp]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

The scientists listed here are only those who have their own WIKI page. So, when I hear ordinary people saying the "science is settled" and there a numerous scientists who dispute this, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's not settled.

You should look at Wiki's list of scientists that agree climate change is created by man. It's so long they have to alphabetise the list. You don't understand how science works.

 

[El Presidente]

Fact : 2014 was the highest level of Antarctic sea ice ever recorded. Doesn't exactly fit with a warming planet.

We are now in 2017 though.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Very mild today for the time of year isn't it.

 

[GreersElbow]

Of dear, you are confusing the facts with the guesswork/assumptions.

Fact : Antarctica is gaining more Ice Mass than it is losing.

Assumption from NASA. This is because of global warming causing more snow. Like all of these assumptions from organisations such as the IPCC, they are guesswork. Their doctrine is global warming and when something doesn't agree with that (you know, like when they said that there would be lots of glacial melting/loss of antarctic ice), the reason why their predictions were wrong is still global warming.

Do you accept that organisations can be politicised? By this I mean, the people put in charge of say NASA, NOAA, EPA can be political biased to promote the message of their masters? The reason I ask this is that Obama was a green agenda president and his appointments would no doubt reflect this. Trump is currently changing the head of the EPA for someone who is not a green-agenda person so lets see how the reporting of climate issues change over the next few years.

So the ice caps are melting, but due to snowfall, it's losses are offset. So therefore, ice caps ARE melting.

Read the ****ing article, you prat.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Fact : 2014 was the highest level of Antarctic sea ice ever recorded. Doesn't exactly fit with a warming planet.

FACT: I know somebody who smoked until they were 90 years old.


Smoking is NOT bad for you.

 

[larus]

We are now in 2017 though.

View attachment 82341

I think my view is being misunderstood.

I do agree that man emits Co2.
I do agree that Co2 is a greehouse gas.

However, I don't agree with the catastrophic man made global warming doctrine. There are many natural cycles within the earths climate system (AMO, PDO, level of cloud cover, etc) which impact the climate. The natural Co2 annual cycle is huge as well and warming oceans emit Co2. There is enough uncertainty to warrant research but too much of the research is done to support the mantra of Co2 being a huge impact.

I'm out of this now as I really can't be bothered with the abuse.

Have a nice day all of you.

 

[dingodan]

The climate of this planet has changed throughout history, it's been much colder and much warmer than it is today.

When you look at global temperature trends those trends express themselves over hundreds and thousands of years. If we want to be able to say whether or not human activity is affecting the trend, what we need to do is take the available data from the time we may have started having an effect (the industrial revolution) up until the present day, and compare that data with the overall trend over hundreds and thousands of years.

What you will find is that the size of data available since the industrial revolution is simply not enough to measure whether there has been an affect.

For example, let's say Brighton have a trend of winning 75% of games over the course of the last two seasons. Then imagine that we get a new manager and we lose a game. Are we able to say at that point that the new manager has changed the trend of our results? No, you would need more data (i.e. more games) before you can make that determination.

I cannot say that Human activity has not had an effect on global climate trends, but nor can anyone honestly say that they know that it has. & it's those claims I have a problem with.

Environmentalists would do well to understand this and be more honest, because protecting the environment is important. If they would only be honest and say that we cannot know whether Human beings are having an effect on the climate, but there are good reasons to protect it, and there is a concern that we might be having an effect, then they would be making a fair point.

While they say instead that they know for sure, and those who disagree are bad people, they immediately lose the argument. An argument they might otherwise be able to win, if only they were honest and humble about what they can know and what they believe.

 

[dingodan]

How much did you receive for this post?

What you are doing is attacking the character of the poster, rather than addressing what he said.

I sympathise strongly with people who believe we should protect the environment, I believe that as much as anyone. But you cannot influence other people or bring them around to your thinking by insulting them and questioning their motives simply because they hold a viewpoint which is different from yours.

 

[WonderingSoton]

What I don't understand is what the climate change skeptics are so afraid of doing?

It hasn't been conclusively proven that my house is going to burn down, yet I change the battery on my smoke alarm every six months.

Most of the things we need to do to protect us from climate change are going to help the planet in other ways.

Genuine question here but why don't we hedge our bets here and have a genuine crack at reducing CO2 and see if that starts to reduce temperature? What is the down side of this approach?

Ah but you see this has already been covered off by the green lobby, the fact that whatever we do now we're still apparently fecked and temperatures will still rise and rise. All bases covered, it's a theory that's impossible to experimentally prove or disprove.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to clean up our act. I'm all for reducing our usage of dirty fuel, developing new technologies and cool ways of powering our lives, improving the air quality of our cities etc. But colour me slightly skeptical on the apparently factual link trotted out every time there's a storm or a polar bear dies.

I think we're slightly arrogant if we think that 150 odd years of Human's dirty activities can so seriously mess with BILLIONS of years of Earth's cycles.

 

[dingodan]

What I don't understand is what the climate change skeptics are so afraid of doing?

It hasn't been conclusively proven that my house is going to burn down, yet I change the battery on my smoke alarm every six months.

Most of the things we need to do to protect us from climate change are going to help the planet in other ways.

Genuine question here but why don't we hedge our bets here and have a genuine crack at reducing CO2 and see if that starts to reduce temperature? What is the down side of this approach?

This is the honest position people should take. Environmentalists have embraced the "precautionary principle", which means we don't know for sure, but it may be too late when we do, so we have to act - despite not knowing for sure.

Whether or not people would agree with that, it's the honest position, but as you can see from this thread, the honest position is not the one people, in large numbers, are taking. & that is the source of contention and disagreement.

If only people would make the case as you are making it, at least then we could have an honest conversation.

 

[Machiavelli]

What you are doing is attacking the character of the poster, rather than addressing what he said.

I sympathise strongly with people who believe we should protect the environment, I believe that as much as anyone. But you cannot influence other people or bring them around to your thinking by insulting them and questioning their motives simply because they hold a viewpoint which is different from yours.

You're wrong. I did both of those things. I suspect I have good reason for ad hominen issues with that poster, for all sorts of reasons, but are you really trying to claim that there's not some industry that's engaged in trying to influence public opinion? I suspect it's widely prevalent, and multi-formed.
The poster did actually respond, claiming that I've misinterpreted their position. Respectfully to you both, I disagree. Why wade straight in to such a debate by attempting to undermine climate science? This is precisely what that poster did, and that poster has form.
You've selected one sentence from the post I've made, but if you go back to it, you'll see that I did address what he said, and used a series of the current understandings derived from climate science to respond to the erroneous view stated in that post.
In our current political conjuncture, you're of the view that being nice will address and solve the mounting problems confronting us, and I'm not.

 

[BBassic]

What you are doing is attacking the character of the poster, rather than addressing what he said.

I sympathise strongly with people who believe we should protect the environment, I believe that as much as anyone. But you cannot influence other people or bring them around to your thinking by insulting them and questioning their motives simply because they hold a viewpoint which is different from yours.

Well said.

 

[dingodan]

You're wrong. I did both of those things. I suspect I have good reason for ad hominen issues with that poster, for all sorts of reasons, but are you really trying to claim that there's not some industry that's engaged in trying to influence public opinion? I suspect it's widely prevalent, and multi-formed.
The poster did actually respond, claiming that I've misinterpreted their position. Respectfully to you both, I disagree. Why wade straight in to such a debate by attempting to undermine climate science? This is precisely what that poster did, and that poster has form.
You've selected one sentence from the post I've made, but if you go back to it, you'll see that I did address what he said, and used a series of the current understandings derived from climate science to respond to the erroneous view stated in that post.
In our current political conjuncture, you're of the view that being nice will address and solve the mounting problems confronting us, and I'm not.

Well projecting motives on people will get you nowhere, and the truth is that you do it to make it easier to dismiss what that person is saying. You didn't respond to what he said, you called it drivel and went on to talk about your own view.

I can't actually deal with the arrogance in your posts, I have no doubt you sincerely believe that you are right (I won't question your motives). But you don't seem interested in open discussion and debate, you don't seem to be able to respect that other people have different, and yet still legitimate, views to your own. Ironically it's those things which make a person progressive, which I'm sure you like to consider yourself to be. You could use a healthy dose of humility.

 

[wellquickwoody]

There are people that still claim the world is flat. Should we say that the world is round debate is not settled as well?

Is it not just a matter of perspective?

 

[wellquickwoody]

We are now in 2017 though.

View attachment 82341

Yeah, but that is the middle of their summer........

 

[dingodan]

There are people that still claim the world is flat. Should we say that the world is round debate is not settled as well?

The world was flat by scientific consensus, remember.

& Just like with this debate today, to suggest otherwise could get you in a lot of trouble, just ask Galileo.

 

[larus]

Source please.






who am I kidding!

Here you go. See, you are criticising and you didn't even know it there had been a maximum sea ice extent. You know the sum total of f*** all.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum


And with that, I will not post on this again. You can't discuss against 'group think' and personal abuse.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The most ridiculous thing about climate change is that addressing it seems the most logical thing to do on any number of levels, whether warming is man made or otherwise.

Renewable clean energy – surely a goal of any civilisation.
Sustainable materials – is this not just practical business sense, i.e. use a product that you can get more of at little cost and that won't run out.
Reduced energy consumption – erm does anyone actually want to pay for more energy than they need?

Most of it is a no-brainer whether you believe in man made climate change or not. The only people against it are those heavily invested in oil and historic industries and processes.

It seems embarrassing really to contemplate our technological achievements, probes leaving our solar system, robots landing on Mars, electricity generated by coal...still. I mean come on, did you seriously believe we'd still be burning coal to make electricity in 2017!!??

 

[Fungus]

The most ridiculous thing about climate change is that addressing it seems the most logical thing to do on any number of levels, whether warming is man made or otherwise.

Renewable clean energy – surely a goal of any civilisation.
Sustainable materials – is this not just practical business sense, i.e. use a product that you can get more of at little cost and that won't run out.
Reduced energy consumption – erm does anyone actually want to pay for more energy than they need?

Most of it is a no-brainer whether you believe in man made climate change or not. The only people against it are those heavily invested in oil and historic industries and processes.

It seems embarrassing really to contemplate our technological achievements, probes leaving our solar system, robots landing on Mars, electricity generated by coal...still. I mean come on, did you seriously believe we'd still be burning coal to make electricity in 2017!!??

Great post. Can you imagine how far Trump's America will eventually be behind the rest of the world with modern energy technology? (Well, hopefully only four years, preferably less.)

 

[BadFish]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

The scientists listed here are only those who have their own WIKI page. So, when I hear ordinary people saying the "science is settled" and there a numerous scientists who dispute this, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's not settled.

Can you please confirm the point you are making with this link?