|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 12, 2023 10:25:25 GMT
Oh please Sandy, don't you start down the cheating road as well. Steppenwolf stated the Guardian article, not a peer reviewed paper. His lack of research is patent. A cursory glance at the Guardian piece shows exactly where their opinion came from. In line with most of the MSM they do not consider it critically or carry out any analysis of how the conclusion was reached, they just publish and be damned, as they are. If you're bothered about it there are numerous other sites analysing the data. The lowest estimate I've found was Forbes who stated the number was over 80%. This is if you exclude those who didn't specifically state increased Co2 in their research. I'll accept 80%. What I wont accept is the dumb idea that we don't know Co2 concentrations are the primary cause of global warming. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 12, 2023 10:30:08 GMT
Just scientific opinions. You're so ill informed you don't even know when you're talking rubbish. You claim its deforestation causing warming without any understanding that forests reduce warming by reducing atmospheric Co2. While at the same time claiming there is no evidence that Co2 causes warming on a global scale. You claim its urban heatsinks without understanding either the conservation of energy or that its atmospheric Co2 that stops that energy escaping the planet. I have tried to argue reasonably with you pointing out these obvious errors, but in return you just accuse ME of not knowing the science. Well I'm done with trying to educate you. Scientific opinions are backed up in the normal course of events with vast swathes of data that confirm the conclusion. There is no data to date that confirms man as the primary driver of climate change. If there is research that confirms this view perhaps we can see it. So far it is an IPCC conclusion repeated in many scientific circles but the specific data that confirms this is the case is sadly lacking. There is a conclusion that is broadly reached. Man has an effect, to an unknown level which ranges from insignificant to calamitous and there is no consensus on the level. There is political drive to make it calamitous which is riddled with hypocrisy and double dealing and science has been co-opted into that political drive. How willingly and how duplicitously remains to be discovered, but as more comes to light we can see the manipulation that has occurred and is underway and it does science no good at all. That's because every piece of evidence presented to you is dismissed as not absolutely proven, and the accumulated body of evidence is not considered as a whole. So you go on believing the bloggers and I'll go on believing NASA and the IPCC along with the scientific institutes from China and just about every other civilised country on the planet. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 12, 2023 10:30:23 GMT
A cursory glance at the Guardian piece shows exactly where their opinion came from. In line with most of the MSM they do not consider it critically or carry out any analysis of how the conclusion was reached, they just publish and be damned, as they are. If you're bothered about it there are numerous other sites analysing the data. The lowest estimate I've found was Forbes who stated the number was over 80%. This is if you exclude those who didn't specifically state increased Co2 in their research. I'll accept 80%. What I wont accept is the dumb idea that we don't know Co2 concentrations are the primary cause of global warming. Are you sure on Forbes? The only Forbes I can find is that dealing with the 2013 Cook study that concluded 97%. If what you say is such a dumb idea perhaps we can see a paper, any paper, that provides the specific data and conclusion that man, by way of greenhouse gases, is the primary driver of climate change. Many people have been searching for it and so far have drawn a blank. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 12, 2023 10:36:40 GMT
If you're bothered about it there are numerous other sites analysing the data. The lowest estimate I've found was Forbes who stated the number was over 80%. This is if you exclude those who didn't specifically state increased Co2 in their research. I'll accept 80%. What I wont accept is the dumb idea that we don't know Co2 concentrations are the primary cause of global warming. Are you sure on Forbes? The only Forbes I can find is that dealing with the 2013 Cook study that concluded 97%. If what you say is such a dumb idea perhaps we can see a paper, any paper, that provides the specific data and conclusion that man, by way of greenhouse gases, is the primary driver of climate change. Many people have been searching for it and so far have drawn a blank. This one, if you read to the bottom you get. Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.” |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 12, 2023 10:58:39 GMT
Zanygame said " I've realised your lack of knowledge on this subject is because you never do any research. This in borne out by your emboldened sentence above. I simple search would have informed you that the Guardian article is far from the only source for this opinion". If there are so many sources for this opinion why did you choose an article from the Guardian that patently did NOT back up your statements about CO2. It clearly states that it's talking generally about man's effects on climate - which no one is going to argue about. Not only do you not understand anything about the subject - you don't even understand what the question is, even after all this debate. Just to reiterate, the argument is about whether CO2 is the primary driver of warming. So where is all this data that you've researched that shows that to be the case? You won't find any - just political opinions. Just scientific opinions. You're so ill informed you don't even know when you're talking rubbish. You claim its deforestation causing warming without any understanding that forests reduce warming by reducing atmospheric Co2. While at the same time claiming there is no evidence that Co2 causes warming on a global scale. You claim its urban heatsinks without understanding either the conservation of energy or that its atmospheric Co2 that stops that energy escaping the planet. I have tried to argue reasonably with you pointing out these obvious errors, but in return you just accuse ME of not knowing the science. Well I'm done with trying to educate you. Technically that is an oxymoron. The scientific view is the results of experiment. For example a statement like we did an experiment and the results were this. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 12, 2023 11:26:49 GMT
Scientific opinions are backed up in the normal course of events with vast swathes of data that confirm the conclusion. There is no data to date that confirms man as the primary driver of climate change. If there is research that confirms this view perhaps we can see it. So far it is an IPCC conclusion repeated in many scientific circles but the specific data that confirms this is the case is sadly lacking. There is a conclusion that is broadly reached. Man has an effect, to an unknown level which ranges from insignificant to calamitous and there is no consensus on the level. There is political drive to make it calamitous which is riddled with hypocrisy and double dealing and science has been co-opted into that political drive. How willingly and how duplicitously remains to be discovered, but as more comes to light we can see the manipulation that has occurred and is underway and it does science no good at all. That's because every piece of evidence presented to you is dismissed as not absolutely proven, and the accumulated body of evidence is not considered as a whole. So you go on believing the bloggers and I'll go on believing NASA and the IPCC along with the scientific institutes from China and just about every other civilised country on the planet. So far the evidence that man is the primary driver, and that is supposed to be the reason we should restrict our activities, is at best sketchy and at worst non-existent. It is not a case of absolutely proven, it is a case of convenient assumptions. NASA quote the IPCC when it comes to climate change and the IPCC is by no means free from scientific criticism. I link through Wattsup but it is an independent peer reviewed report by a experienced group of scientists in the field. wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/16/climate-scientists-accuse-the-ipcc-of-cherrypicking-datasets-which-support-their-alarmist-narrative/ |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 12, 2023 11:34:54 GMT
Are you sure on Forbes? The only Forbes I can find is that dealing with the 2013 Cook study that concluded 97%. If what you say is such a dumb idea perhaps we can see a paper, any paper, that provides the specific data and conclusion that man, by way of greenhouse gases, is the primary driver of climate change. Many people have been searching for it and so far have drawn a blank. This one, if you read to the bottom you get. Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”That refers to Cook's 2013 assessment and has been shown to be bunkum. If it does not matter what the consensus is why so desperate to prove it is high. Actual polls reach a different conclusion. wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/09/97-consensus-on-climate-change-survey-shows-only-59-of-scientists-expect-significant-harm/ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and their media allies across the globe. The survey, conducted in September and October 2022 by Fairleigh Dickinson University and commissioned by The Heartland Institute, polled only professionals and academics who held at least a bachelor’s degree in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, geology, and hydrology. The key question of the survey asked: “In your judgement, what will be the overall impact of global climate change on living conditions for people alive today, across the globe?” Fifty-nine percent said “significant harm.” Thirty-nine percent said either “significant improvement,” “slight improvement,” “no change,” or “slight harm.” Two percent were not sure. Among respondents with the most experience – those at least 50-years-old – less than half expect significant harm for people alive today. Scientists 30-years-old and younger were the only age group for which more than 60 percent expect significant harm. Like prior surveys of scientists, the new poll shows the vast majority of scientists agree the planet is warming. On average, respondents attributed 75 percent of recent warming to human activity. More importantly, scientists disagree among themselves on whether future warming will be much of a problem. The poll also found only 41 percent of respondents believe there has been a significant increase in the frequency of severe weather events. The majority say there has been no change or only a slight increase. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2023 11:52:18 GMT
Once Al Gore made his film "An Inconvenient Truth" all science was thrown out of the window, along with the hockey stick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 12, 2023 13:48:38 GMT
Are you sure on Forbes? The only Forbes I can find is that dealing with the 2013 Cook study that concluded 97%. If what you say is such a dumb idea perhaps we can see a paper, any paper, that provides the specific data and conclusion that man, by way of greenhouse gases, is the primary driver of climate change. Many people have been searching for it and so far have drawn a blank. This one, if you read to the bottom you get. Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”Any idea of the percentage who believed the Piltdown man scam? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 12, 2023 13:52:39 GMT
Once Al Gore made his film "An Inconvenient Truth" all science was thrown out of the window, along with the hockey stick. Ah yes, Fat Al Gore, he who fronted the USA green movement at the same time as having serious interest in profiting from preventing the apocalypse. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 12, 2023 20:24:34 GMT
Just scientific opinions. You're so ill informed you don't even know when you're talking rubbish. You claim its deforestation causing warming without any understanding that forests reduce warming by reducing atmospheric Co2. While at the same time claiming there is no evidence that Co2 causes warming on a global scale. You claim its urban heatsinks without understanding either the conservation of energy or that its atmospheric Co2 that stops that energy escaping the planet. I have tried to argue reasonably with you pointing out these obvious errors, but in return you just accuse ME of not knowing the science. Well I'm done with trying to educate you. Technically that is an oxymoron. The scientific view is the results of experiment. For example a statement like we did an experiment and the results were this. I see your point Baron, though I don't think it effects my statement which is the result of well accepted science. Like your example BTW. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 12, 2023 20:28:49 GMT
That's because every piece of evidence presented to you is dismissed as not absolutely proven, and the accumulated body of evidence is not considered as a whole. So you go on believing the bloggers and I'll go on believing NASA and the IPCC along with the scientific institutes from China and just about every other civilised country on the planet. So far the evidence that man is the primary driver, and that is supposed to be the reason we should restrict our activities, is at best sketchy and at worst non-existent. It is not a case of absolutely proven, it is a case of convenient assumptions. NASA quote the IPCC when it comes to climate change and the IPCC is by no means free from scientific criticism. I link through Wattsup but it is an independent peer reviewed report by a experienced group of scientists in the field. wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/16/climate-scientists-accuse-the-ipcc-of-cherrypicking-datasets-which-support-their-alarmist-narrative/Hence the need to state 80+% of climatologists support the view. Either way the one factor we can affect is the man made proportion. And better still is the idea that we stop relying on our increasing energy needs for evermore unstable countries. Win win as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 12, 2023 20:45:21 GMT
Hence the need to state 80+% of climatologists support the view. Either way the one factor we can affect is the man made proportion. And better still is the idea that we stop relying on our increasing energy needs for evermore unstable countries. Win win as far as I'm concerned. However it is not clear what view they actually support as just one person stated and there were many more; richardtol.blogspot.com/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.htmlIn their paper, Cook and colleagues argue that 97% of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable. It follows immediately from the 19th century research by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97% refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about climate change rather than the dangers it might pose. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 12, 2023 21:01:19 GMT
Hence the need to state 80+% of climatologists support the view. Either way the one factor we can affect is the man made proportion. And better still is the idea that we stop relying on our increasing energy needs for evermore unstable countries. Win win as far as I'm concerned. However it is not clear what view they actually support as just one person stated and there were many more; richardtol.blogspot.com/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.htmlIn their paper, Cook and colleagues argue that 97% of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable. It follows immediately from the 19th century research by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97% refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about climate change rather than the dangers it might pose. Jolly good. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 13, 2023 8:17:40 GMT
Zanygame said " I've realised your lack of knowledge on this subject is because you never do any research. This in borne out by your emboldened sentence above. I simple search would have informed you that the Guardian article is far from the only source for this opinion". If there are so many sources for this opinion why did you choose an article from the Guardian that patently did NOT back up your statements about CO2. It clearly states that it's talking generally about man's effects on climate - which no one is going to argue about. Not only do you not understand anything about the subject - you don't even understand what the question is, even after all this debate. Just to reiterate, the argument is about whether CO2 is the primary driver of warming. So where is all this data that you've researched that shows that to be the case? You won't find any - just political opinions. Just scientific opinions. 1.You're so ill informed you don't even know when you're talking rubbish. You claim its deforestation causing warming without any understanding that forests reduce warming by reducing atmospheric Co2. While at the same time claiming there is no evidence that Co2 causes warming on a global scale. 2. You claim its urban heatsinks without understanding either the conservation of energy or that its atmospheric Co2 that stops that energy escaping the planet. I have tried to argue reasonably with you pointing out these obvious errors, but in return you just accuse ME of not knowing the science. Well I'm done with trying to educate you. The first point is that the facts are NOT determined by scientific opinion. Otherwise the Sun would be orbiting the Earth. On point 1, the reason why forests cause cooling is that the process of photosynthesis uses the Sun's energy to create sugars (to grow in other words). They do ALSO reduce CO2 but there's no unequivocal evidence that shows that this reduces warming. There is plenty of unequivocal evidence that forested areas are MUCH cooler than other areas. On point 2, the term isn't "urban heatsinks" - which I've never heard of - it's urban heat islands. And maybe you could explain your reference to "conservation of energy". None of that sentence even begins to make sense. Sorry, Zanygame, but you have NO understanding of science and the only knowledge you have is derived from google - and, like most people who try to learn stuff by google, it's left you completely confused. You have the level of understanding of science of a lazy third former. And the article in Forbes is again not talking about CO2 warming - it's talking about "human" activities. Human activities are most definitely involved in climate change. No one could possibly expect the massive changes we've made to our planet's land surface not to have a significant effect on climate. So I would expect 100% of scientists to say that humans are changing climate. But exactly how much we're changing the climate has not been evaluated and the role of CO2 has also not been evaluated. My own opinion is that the next major event in climate change will be - as ALWAYS - a natural effect. And my guess would be that it will be a major cooling event, For example it's way overdue for the super volcano in Yellowstone National Park to erupt. And when it does it'll black out the sky for about a year shower ash over most of north America. That'll cause more than 1.5C degrees of cooling.  |
|
