|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 1, 2023 18:20:58 GMT
We had a thread whereby lefties were up in arms as regards headlines that they said were telling lies. So if lying is a no-no to lefties they want to try some of this where there are more lies in these few short paragraphs than are dreamed of in their philosophy Several scientists told Context that people living in Europe, the Arctic, much of Africa, North America, the Middle East, Asia and parts of South America have in recent years been exposed to regional temperatures that breached the 1.5°C ceiling. They are being hit hard by the ever-more damaging heatwaves, droughts, floods, storms and wildfires fuelled by temperatures above the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold, the scientists said. “Many people are living in areas that have already warmed more than 1.5°C, and … the main reason for this is that the land warms faster than the oceans,” said Robert Rohde, chief scientist at Berkeley Earth, a US non-profit research group. With temperatures varying naturally from day to day, it is hard for anyone to notice a long-term local change of 1.5°C. But the creeping rise in regional temperatures on land - which accounts for only 30 per cent of the planet’s surface - is super-charging increasingly extreme weather for its 8 billion people. Worldwide, July was the hottest month on record at exactly the Paris limit of 1.5°C. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said this heralded a new era of “global boiling”. And ever more people are facing global warming of 1.5°C or above year-round. www.eco-business.com/news/global-boiling-billions-already-suffer-in-heat-over-15c-limit/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2023 11:32:38 GMT
Any argument worth its salt should be based upon REASON and REASONING
For this to happen we need to use Science, scientific based evidence and data, its how the world has progressed, its how discoveries are made and how new medicines are created.
SOME people would say that "the law of averages" or "the likelyhood of a fact, based on existing evidence which POINTS TO a particular conclusion, is not sound.
97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, and that human activity is the cause
Is there really any more to be said ?
If there are 100,000 scientists in the world, the above fact means that there will be 3000 scientists who do not believe in climate change, and that humans are not the cause. Opposed to 97,000 scientists who believe the opposite.
If this data ( 97% / 3% ) was the result of a scientific experiment, it would be regarded as conclusive
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 2, 2023 11:41:28 GMT
'If this data ( 97% / 3% ) was the result of a scientific experiment, it would be regarded as conclusive ' really?  The science I know says it only takes one counter result to disprove a theory. As Max Plank proved. That said the OP is junk |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 2, 2023 13:15:15 GMT
Any argument worth its salt should be based upon REASON and REASONING For this to happen we need to use Science, scientific based evidence and data, its how the world has progressed, its how discoveries are made and how new medicines are created. SOME people would say that "the law of averages" or "the likelyhood of a fact, based on existing evidence which POINTS TO a particular conclusion, is not sound. 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, and that human activity is the cause
Is there really any more to be said ? If there are 100,000 scientists in the world, the above fact means that there will be 3000 scientists who do not believe in climate change, and that humans are not the cause. Opposed to 97,000 scientists who believe the opposite. If this data ( 97% / 3% ) was the result of a scientific experiment, it would be regarded as conclusive However the 97% is not the result of a scientific experiment, it is an assessment based on subjective opinions on the abstracts of a number of peer reviewed papers. If no opinion was expressed in any paper then that paper was rejected. If all papers were included the 'consensus' would be about 32%. So 32% agree, about 1% disagree and as regards the other 67% we have no idea. However the science is settled, isn't it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2023 13:36:56 GMT
Any argument worth its salt should be based upon REASON and REASONING For this to happen we need to use Science, scientific based evidence and data, its how the world has progressed, its how discoveries are made and how new medicines are created. SOME people would say that "the law of averages" or "the likelyhood of a fact, based on existing evidence which POINTS TO a particular conclusion, is not sound. 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, and that human activity is the cause
Is there really any more to be said ? If there are 100,000 scientists in the world, the above fact means that there will be 3000 scientists who do not believe in climate change, and that humans are not the cause. Opposed to 97,000 scientists who believe the opposite. If this data ( 97% / 3% ) was the result of a scientific experiment, it would be regarded as conclusive However the 97% is not the result of a scientific experiment, it is an assessment based on subjective opinions on the abstracts of a number of peer reviewed papers. If no opinion was expressed in any paper then that paper was rejected. If all papers were included the 'consensus' would be about 32%. So 32% agree, about 1% disagree and as regards the other 67% we have no idea. However the science is settled, isn't it. With respect - you have no idea where I got my information from, but yet you have decided that it is based on the opinions from a set number of scientific papers, which is actually not true. My figure is quoted from NASA, for which I provide the link below The NASA conclusions go on to state (quote) "the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here. ( climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ ) climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 2, 2023 18:26:39 GMT
However the 97% is not the result of a scientific experiment, it is an assessment based on subjective opinions on the abstracts of a number of peer reviewed papers. If no opinion was expressed in any paper then that paper was rejected. If all papers were included the 'consensus' would be about 32%. So 32% agree, about 1% disagree and as regards the other 67% we have no idea. However the science is settled, isn't it. With respect - you have no idea where I got my information from, but yet you have decided that it is based on the opinions from a set number of scientific papers, which is actually not true. My figure is quoted from NASA, for which I provide the link below The NASA conclusions go on to state (quote) "the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here. ( climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ ) climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/Then I humbly suggest Sid that you find out where the 97% consensus comes from, how it was derived, what was actually concluded and why most organisations like NASA and a host of other groups parrot the IPCC line as regards the consensus and all use the same papers published by Cook et al. The paper on which the figure is based is John Cook 2013. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024You can plough through the detail if you like but many others have done it very well and in depth and there is a host of papers that dispute its findings mostly for the simple fact that he ignored papers where an opinion on human involvement in the climate was not given. That is fine if one concludes that where an opinion is given then 97% of those who give an opinion agree man is affecting climate, However that is never what is said and the 67% who gave no opinion somehow end up as being part of the consensus which they may or may not be, the point is we do not know. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 2, 2023 18:30:45 GMT
'If this data ( 97% / 3% ) was the result of a scientific experiment, it would be regarded as conclusive ' really? The science I know says it only takes one counter result to disprove a theory. As Max Plank proved. That said the OP is junk Not sure what you mean by 'junk'? Do you think there is no lying and we will have global boiling or do you think it is an out and out lie. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 2, 2023 18:33:13 GMT
It's junk because it essentially argues that if you can find one statement of one MMGW theory advocate that you can question then somehow that's supposed to mean the whole theory is false.
Just isn't a logical proposition
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 2, 2023 18:54:37 GMT
It's junk because it essentially argues that if you can find one statement of one MMGW theory advocate that you can question then somehow that's supposed to mean the whole theory is false. Just isn't a logical proposition That may well be true however none of the statements are stand alone from MMGW they abound in the literature and policy statements and are oft quoted as fact by a variety of MSN or in fact almost all of them. MMGW is one such statement; unproven and widely contested which is exactly why it became MMCC which has the same meaning but can encompass anything. Also "They are being hit hard by the ever-more damaging heatwaves, droughts, floods, storms and wildfires fuelled by temperatures above the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold," Has no basis in any research or available data and is a statement at odds with the reality on the ground by almost any measure. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 2, 2023 19:13:36 GMT
..."the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists..." "actively publishing climate scientists" - ie those who are pushing that agenda. Note, it isn't 97% of scientists - it's 97% of scientists who already subscribe to these theories. Which is a very different story. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 2, 2023 19:43:16 GMT
However the 97% is not the result of a scientific experiment, it is an assessment based on subjective opinions on the abstracts of a number of peer reviewed papers. If no opinion was expressed in any paper then that paper was rejected. If all papers were included the 'consensus' would be about 32%. So 32% agree, about 1% disagree and as regards the other 67% we have no idea. However the science is settled, isn't it. With respect - you have no idea where I got my information from, but yet you have decided that it is based on the opinions from a set number of scientific papers, which is actually not true. My figure is quoted from NASA, for which I provide the link below The NASA conclusions go on to state (quote) "the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here. ( climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ ) climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/Oh i know a little about ‘actively publishing’ If the majority of actively publishing scientists say ‘x’ my first thought as a former actively publishing scientist is ‘how manyvare not actively publishing, and why is that. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 2, 2023 19:50:05 GMT
Majority of scientists have been proved wrong in the past,the blind faith that they say it so must be true I find disturbing.
Anyway they’ve upped the ante and now say 1 billion will die because of their theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 2, 2023 19:55:32 GMT
..."the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists..." "actively publishing climate scientists" - ie those who are pushing that agenda. Note, it isn't 97% of scientists - it's 97% of scientists who already subscribe to these theories. Which is a very different story. You see how far the labour party have fallen from their roots when sid the socialist is actively supporting taxing the working class till the pip squeaks in the name of the climate religion.
Keir hardie would be turning in his grave listening to the utter drivel these new labour cult members spout.
i dont think the working class give a flying fuck what 97 % of scientists allegedly think if it means them becoming poorer and hungrier due to labours climate agenda and tax and spend drooling if they take power at the next election , which im increasingly doubting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 2, 2023 21:29:06 GMT
It's junk because it essentially argues that if you can find one statement of one MMGW theory advocate that you can question then somehow that's supposed to mean the whole theory is false. Just isn't a logical proposition That may well be true however none of the statements are stand alone from MMGW they abound in the literature and policy statements and are oft quoted as fact by a variety of MSN or in fact almost all of them. MMGW is one such statement; unproven and widely contested which is exactly why it became MMCC which has the same meaning but can encompass anything. Also "They are being hit hard by the ever-more damaging heatwaves, droughts, floods, storms and wildfires fuelled by temperatures above the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold," Has no basis in any research or available data and is a statement at odds with the reality on the ground by almost any measure. I suggest you go google some of those statements you believe was some official output. They weren't. The junk media just love to publicise 'man bites dog' misrepresentations of the science community consensus. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 2, 2023 22:33:49 GMT
That may well be true however none of the statements are stand alone from MMGW they abound in the literature and policy statements and are oft quoted as fact by a variety of MSN or in fact almost all of them. MMGW is one such statement; unproven and widely contested which is exactly why it became MMCC which has the same meaning but can encompass anything. Also "They are being hit hard by the ever-more damaging heatwaves, droughts, floods, storms and wildfires fuelled by temperatures above the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold," Has no basis in any research or available data and is a statement at odds with the reality on the ground by almost any measure. I suggest you go google some of those statements you believe was some official output. They weren't. The junk media just love to publicise 'man bites dog' misrepresentations of the science community consensus. Whoa I referred to lying and exampled statements in common circulation within the MSN. What is official or non official, however you interpret that (and Sid raised an official one in the 97% consensus which is first order junk surrounded by and reinforced by lies) is largely irrelevant. The point being that 'the left' tend to ignore and/or embrace the lies for that which they support yet are up in arms at what they perceive as any misrepresentation by those they hate no matter how small or inconsequential. |
|
