Global Warming

[TigerMasochist]

Australia is not closing coal plants TO SAVE THE WORLD, we're doing it because they're coming to the end of their lives. We're not building more because they're neither environmentally friendly nor economically viable.

Not building Nuclear coz that's even nastier than coal. Nor are we building Gas coz Dan the Man says we can't have any, not even allowed to have a look around to see if we've got any hidden in the cupboard somewhere. Probably can't do solar either as we've already got to much sunshine cooking up the planet so we're trying to figure out a way to turn the sunshine off to avoid all this climate changing that's happening.
Oh well, at least we'll have lots of squillions of $hekels from selling all of our left over coal to somebody else. Then we can sit in the dark in our caves counting them while the rest of the world fries.

 

[AngryAnt]

Then we can sit in the dark in our caves counting them while the rest of the world fries.

 

[Coburgtiger]

I'll allow that you're late to the discussion. That "factoid" is rarely trotted out these days for a reason.

What's Wrong with the Claim that "97% of Climate Scientists Agree" about Global Warming?

A variety of studies have purported to find an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists on global warming. However, the studies rarely specify what it is to which the scientists agree. Usually it is nothing more than that the earth has warmed since 1800 and that human activity has contributed

cornwallalliance.org

Platitudes aren't enough, you need some substance now.


No hypocrisy whatsoever. I'm a discerning interpreter of information.

If I'm a "denier", it's only that I deny there is currently an emergency or indeed any pressing need to cut off our left arms, economically speaking. Nowhere have I denied unadulterated facts; I'm skeptical of some opinions.

- it's warming gradually
- the prevailing belief is that man is a signifcant contributor to the warming (nobody can confirm it beyond reasonable doubt - you can't measure it, and there's almost no research being funded into natural causes)


Twat out.

There is a reason 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is not a scientific standard of proof.

It's also not a rational way to make policy or even life decisions.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

There is a reason 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is not a scientific standard of proof.

It's also not a rational way to make policy or even life decisions.

I'm not convinced, and no amount of telling me I should be convinced will change it.

 

[Coburgtiger]

I'm not convinced, and no amount of telling me I should be convinced will change it.

That's fine. You're wrong, but it's fine.

 

[DavidSSS]

Geez still peddling the usual crap I see L2R2R.

It is warming gradually . . . you were expecting maybe a big bang of warming all in one go, consistent across the whole complicated planet?

It is not a "belief" that human activities are warming the planet, it is based on science (you know, that which you ignore when not aligned to right wing values). We know there is a greenhouse effect, we know that increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere enhances the greenhouse effect, we know (it is measured in Hawaii) that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising, we know that the rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human activities as it is a different isotope of CO2. All of this has been explained to you before, but facts which don't fit with your world view are ignored.

Warming will continue if we keep enhancing the greenhouse effect by increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your last point is nonsensical: what those of us who choose to listen to the experts want is for humans to stop altering the global climate. It is the deniers who have no issue with human activities altering the climate.

You may quote the Cornwall Alliance, a bunch of fruit cakes if I have ever seen one, I prefer peer reviewed science. You may question the changes in the climate observed and reported by scientists, but I note you keep quoting scientists in the COVID-19 thread. I also note your frustration at being called out on this hypocrisy.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

deleted

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Geez still peddling the usual crap I see L2R2R.

It is warming gradually . . . you were expecting maybe a big bang of warming all in one go, consistent across the whole complicated planet?

It is not a "belief" that human activities are warming the planet, it is based on science (you know, that which you ignore when not aligned to right wing values). We know there is a greenhouse effect, we know that increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere enhances the greenhouse effect, we know (it is measured in Hawaii) that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising, we know that the rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human activities as it is a different isotope of CO2. All of this has been explained to you before, but facts which don't fit with your world view are ignored.

Warming will continue if we keep enhancing the greenhouse effect by increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your last point is nonsensical: what those of us who choose to listen to the experts want is for humans to stop altering the global climate. It is the deniers who have no issue with human activities altering the climate.

You may quote the Cornwall Alliance, a bunch of fruit cakes if I have ever seen one, I prefer peer reviewed science. You may question the changes in the climate observed and reported by scientists, but I note you keep quoting scientists in the COVID-19 thread. I also note your frustration at being called out on this hypocrisy.

DS

What are your credentials? Show me your ****en credentials!

 

[DavidSSS]

As I said, I prefer to source my info from scientists. Peer reviewed journals occasionally but also sites like Yale Climate Science in preference to What's Warped With That, Cornwall conspiracy Alliance and the like.

I'm not challenging the science, you are, what are your credentials?

I notice you are back to your usual tactic of not addressing the science, how predictably boring.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

It is not a "belief" that human activities are warming the planet, it is based on science (you know, that which you ignore when not aligned to right wing values). We know there is a greenhouse effect, we know that increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere enhances the greenhouse effect, we know (it is measured in Hawaii) that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising, we know that the rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human activities as it is a different isotope of CO2. All of this has been explained to you before, but facts which don't fit with your world view are ignored.

It is absolutely a belief. A theory. It is not necessarily correct, given that warm periods have occurred in the past. And I haven't ignored it. The discussion didn't begin when you arrived, you know. But I will indulge you for your own edification.

Three percent of CO2 emissions are attributable to humans. Three percent.

CO2 concentration only began rising markedly after 1950. Therefore you must agree, according to your beliefs, that warming between the Little Ice Age and 1950 was natural, and warming since 1950 man-made. Think about that for a bit.

There are no human fingerprints of global warming. None. You get shitty beliefs like that from reading Cook's website. And the strength of human-caused warming cannot be calculated from first principles. Even if all warming is assumed to be human-caused, the IPCC's climate models are exaggerating climate sensitivity by approximately double. Man's impact is simply not able to be definitively shown. If it was, it would've been done long before now.

To subscribe to alarmism you must believe that a) climate is fragile, b) climate has been relatively stable and unchanging and c) today's climate (or the climate prior to the IR) is a naturally-determined optimum that we should aim to preserve. All three are at least eminently debatable if not simply false.

The difference between warmists and skeptics in a nutshell is that warmists trust models, skeptics trust observations. So you put your trust where you please, and I'll do likewise.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate."

- signed, US scientists

Global Warming Petition Project

These people must be twats, warped, conspirators, sponsored, hypocrites, deniers, irrational, crap peddlers, fruitcakes, arrogant or possibly all of the above. And that's just from the last page of this thread.

You lot are going to tread more respectfully from now on. Or I'm going to take heads.

 

[Nico]

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate."

- signed, US scientists

Global Warming Petition Project

These people must be twats, warped, conspirators, sponsored, hypocrites, deniers, irrational, crap peddlers, fruitcakes, arrogant or possibly all of the above. And that's just from the last page of this thread.

You lot are going to tread more respectfully from now on. Or I'm going to take heads.

Climate scientists were they?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Global Warming Petition Project

These people must be twats, warped, conspirators, sponsored, hypocrites, deniers, irrational, crap peddlers, fruitcakes, arrogant or possibly all of the above. And that's just from the last page of this thread.

I just Googled a handful of the names that signed that petition..

 

[Baloo]

Global Warming Petition Project

Slick website. Probably created with Frontpage.

But it gets a mention in Snopes

FACT CHECK: Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?

More than 30,000 people may have signed a petition challenging the veracity of anthropogenic global warming, but you don’t have to be a climate scientist to sign it.

www.snopes.com

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Climate scientists were they?

Have a look for yourself.

Global Warming Petition Project

www.petitionproject.org

All dumbarses.

 

[spook]

Oh, Lee. You could not have picked a more discredited, illegitimate pile of horseshit if you tried. But I guess that's all deniers have.

From the Snopes article Baloo linked:

Claim

30,000 scientists have signed a petition arguing that there is no convincing scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change.
Rating

Mostly False
About this rating
What's True
A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the concept of anthropogenic global warming.
What's False
The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign.



Origin
Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?
A claim has been floating around since 1998 that thousands of scientists have rejected the concept of climate change, ever since since a self-described research group by the name of the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” solicited signatures for a petition (known now as the Oregon Petition) to have the United States reject the Kyoto Protocol to set internationally binding emission reduction targets.

It is therefore misleading for the signatories to be considered climate scientists or even top researchers in their field, as some suggest. In fact, based on the group’s own numbers, only 12% of the signers have degrees (of any kind) in earth, environmental, or atmospheric science.

Further, the petition and its creators are not neutral parties, and the major entities supporting it can easily be described as politically motivated. The petition was organized by Arthur B. Robinson, a conservative politician who founded the aforementioned Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and who holds a PhD in biochemistry from the University of San Diego.

Along with the petition itself, the document was sent out with a cover letter written by Frederick Seitz, a National Medal of Science Medal winner and a former president of the National Academy of Science who later went on to be an influential yet controversial tobacco lobbyist and who founded the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank that has since morphed into one more focused on the climate, with a long history of promoting environmental skepticism.

In 1994, Seitz authored a paper (external download archived by GreenPeace USA here) titled “Global warming and ozone hole controversies: A challenge to scientific judgment,” which simultaneously made the two demonstrably false claims that chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, were not a threat to the ozone layer, and that second-hand tobacco smoke inhalation was not a threat to health.

Seitz’s participation in the circulation of this petition raises another line of issues for the petition — that its original iteration intentionally misled its signers into thinking it was a document officially supported by the National Academy of Sciences. Seitz, a former president of the Academy, used its official letterhead to draft a letter of support and manufactured a non-peer-reviewed “study” formatted to look as if it were published in an Academy journal, as reported by the Washington Post in 2006:

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz — as he had just reminded his correspondents — was once president.
Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences released this statement: “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”

CFCs don't damage the ozone layer and tobacco doesn't harm your health. That's literally the company this petition is in.

And then there's this:

In addition to the political motivations behind the Oregon Petition and the deceptive ways in which those motivations were masked, there is also the problem of accountability regarding the validity of the names that appear on the list. In 2001, Scientific American attempted to verify a random sample of 30 names on the list who claimed to have a Ph.D. in climate science:

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.

And this:

Critics of the lax accountability about those who allegedly signed the document were even able at one point to add a variety of humorously fictional or otherwise absurd names, as University of Colorado researcher Myanna Lahsen discussed in a 2005 paper published in the journal Science, Technology, and Human Values:

Careful study of the list revealed the names of fictional characters from the “Star Wars” movies as well as the name of pop singer Geri Halliwell from the “Spice Girls” band. Critics of the petition had added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved, including the difficulty—the practical impossibility—of verifying even the actual existence of each of the signatories, not to mention their expertise. To make the latter point, someone had added the title of “Dr.” to Halliwell’s name.

Signed by Chewbacca and Dr Ginger Spice!

Aside from the potential political motivations behind the petition, the misleading tactics employed to gather signatures, and the lack of verification regarding those signatures, the fact remains that the petition is open to anyone with an undergraduate background in science to sign, and a vast majority of the signatories are not climate scientists.

A discredited, politically-motivated, deceitful, 22-year-old petition. You're hanging your hat on that?

 

[AngryAnt]

ou lot are going to tread more respectfully from now on. Or I'm going to take heads.

You can take heads through internet forums now?

What will they think of next

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

A discredited, politically-motivated, deceitful, 22-year-old petition. You're hanging your hat on that?

No I'm not "hanging my hat" on it. It only illustrates that educated people can have an opinion different to yours. It doesn't make them idiots. Presumably those people can have their names removed if they change their minds.

From the Snopes article Baloo linked:

Good ol' Snopes. They also gave Climategate the thumbs up. May as well be reading The Guardian.

This is how people like you get manipulated. You don't read with understanding, e.g.

It is therefore misleading for the signatories to be considered climate scientists or even top researchers in their field

The petition never claimed that, but whatever. I didn't bother reading beyond that point.

 

[spook]

No I'm not "hanging my hat" on it. It only illustrates that educated people can have an opinion different to yours. It doesn't make them idiots. Presumably those people can have their names removed if they change their minds.


Good 'ol Snopes. They also gave Climategate the thumbs up.

This is how people like you get manipulated. You don't read with understanding, e.g.


The petition never claimed that, but whatever. I didn't bother reading beyond that point.

Of course you didn't. You might have had to face some truths you don't want to acknowledge.

It's all a conspiracy, manipulating people like me. You and Chewbacca are on the right side of history.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Of course you didn't. You might have had to face some truths you don't want to acknowledge.

It's all a conspiracy, manipulating people like me. You and Chewbacca are on the right side of history.

Yes, you have been hopelessly manipulated.

You rail against the existence of god, yet support the existence of a mystical nonmaterial connection to a land mass by race. Have a look in your own backyard mate.