The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

Do 97% Of Climate Scientists Really Agree? [Video]

A brief, fact-filled look at the phenomenon of “97% Consensus” endlessly repeated by AGW fanatics. It has no basis in truth or realty, it’s just a “buzz-word” to chant. Why look at facts and truth you know you don’t like? Just repeat the AGW dogma endlessly. (Short answer: no, not even remotely. Easily disproven but the lie still gets repeated by hundreds.)

[Total: 30    Average: 2/5]
53 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 19867
Rating: 2
Category: Science
Date: 07/15/16 09:57 AM

53 Responses to Do 97% Of Climate Scientists Really Agree? [Video]

  1. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    5029 posts
    July 15, 2016 at 10:59 am
    OH BOY!
    • Profile photo of jay
      jay Male 30-39
      2215 posts
      July 15, 2016 at 4:01 pm
      Yeah, I'm gonna leave this here: "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus." link
      • Profile photo of richanddead
        richanddead Male 18-29
        3707 posts
        July 16, 2016 at 12:37 pm
        @jay: Careful those authors are HIGHLY biased, I think you and I already had a discussion earlier about how Oreskes misquoted studies to make her points. John Cook also listed skeptics like Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner, and Alan Carlin as supporting his 97 percent consensus which the paper you linked still endorses. When his last 97.1% consensus paper's data was reviewed, the researchers only found a 0.3% consensus and many of the papers didn't even have to do with climate change at all. The study you linked has to do with an ongoing fued between Richard Tol and John Cook. Tol has written several articals and peer reviewed studies detailing how Cook is wrong. Cooks has been writing peer reviewedrebuttals in return, the one you linked being one of them. (Notice that although in the link you posted where he claims Tol is a "non-expert," here Cook uses non credentialed skepticalscience.com contributers as his researchers, like Rob Honeycutt whos a bicycle messenger in San Francisco with no degree) All that being said, the paper you linked is an attempt to rebuttle Richard Tol by using reaserchers (who share the same research paper data with each other) reviewing their own concensus research papers and claiming a concencus on concencus. They also don't include any reaserch articles that don't come to the same findings as what they agree with. Like Legates et al. that used the same exact data that Cook used, by some of the same scientists who's papers Cook claimed were in support of his 97.1 consensus, and found that the data he used shows only a 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus. link
        • Profile photo of jay
          jay Male 30-39
          2215 posts
          July 16, 2016 at 5:53 pm
          From one of your links (Guardian): "Cook and co selected some 12,000 papers from the scientific literature to test whether these papers support the hypothesis that humans played a substantial role in the observed warming of the Earth. 12,000 is a strange number. The climate literature is much larger. The number of papers on the detection and attribution of climate change is much, much smaller." -> It is a smaller number. Cook found 4,014 of those papers took a position.
          • Profile photo of richanddead
            richanddead Male 18-29
            3707 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 6:11 pm
            @jay: Yes and it goes on to say "In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook’s team about the message of the paper in question."
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 6:30 pm
            I think you'll find an appropriate response below regarding the authors being invited to "self rate" their work.
        • Profile photo of jay
          jay Male 30-39
          2215 posts
          July 16, 2016 at 6:08 pm
          "Notice that although in the link you posted where he claims Tol is a "non-expert," here Cook uses non credentialed skepticalscience.com contributers as his researchers, like Rob Honeycutt whos a bicycle messenger in San Francisco with no degree" -> Are you referring to this: "Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus." -> You don't find a difference between a non expert surveyed as part of a consensus, and a non expert contributing research to determine what the consensus is from the experts?
          • Profile photo of richanddead
            richanddead Male 18-29
            3707 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 6:18 pm
            @jay: Not really, in both cases the study's are relying on data collected by so called "non-experts." Why in your view should we accept the research of one "non-expert" but reject the research of another "non-expert?"
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 6:27 pm
            Again, there's a difference between a non expert conducting a survey and taking part in it.
        • Profile photo of jay
          jay Male 30-39
          2215 posts
          July 16, 2016 at 6:25 pm
          "I think you and I already had a discussion earlier about how Oreskes misquoted studies to make her points." -> If you say so, I don't recall. -> "John Cook also listed skeptics.." -> "In addition, the study authors were invited to rate their own papers, based on the contents of the full paper, not just the abstract. Amongst 1381 papers self-rated by their authors as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
          • Profile photo of richanddead
            richanddead Male 18-29
            3707 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 8:22 pm
            If they are conducting a survey then they are also taking part in it. If they are taking part in conducting a survey then they are conducting a survey. The data is still being interpreted by so called "non-experts." Simply saying "well it's not all the data in the survey" is irrelevant, he is willing to use the work of "non-experts" when they serve his purpose. I'm also sure that out of that sample size most agreed, I wouldn't imagine that Cook would repeat the same glaring errors twice in a row. If he was still trying to claim that scientists like Willie Soon was in support of AGW the paper couldn't have been published and he could be liable to lawsuit. But notice the sample is much smaller, around 1/3rd of the size of the of the 4,014 of the abstracts that stated a position on human-caused global warming. They aren't including any studies or data that disagree. What happened to the 2/3rd's of authors papers who disagreed with his original study, did they disappear? What happened to the two surveys that I linked? Why were they not included in this study? Look there are legitimate studies that support the idea of AGW, but this isn't it.
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 8:43 pm
            But what did he contribute to the survey? It doesn't take an expert to be one of the people to write to the authors and ask them to rate their work. I don't see him listed as an author of the link I provided. Surveying non experts is a whole other can of worms.
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 8:48 pm
            "What happened to the 2/3rd's of authors papers who disagreed with his original study" -> The analysis of the papers conclude far fewer disagreed with the premise, as for why only about a third of them responded to a request to self rate, I'll look for a specific answer, but it could be they were too busy to reply.
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 8:53 pm
            And keep in mind of those that did reply, 2.8% said their work didn't support AGW. This is consistent with 2.9% of the papers taking that position.
        • Profile photo of jay
          jay Male 30-39
          2215 posts
          July 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
          "who share the same research paper data with each other" -> Using sometimes different methodology to come up with different numbers?
          • Profile photo of richanddead
            richanddead Male 18-29
            3707 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 8:32 pm
            Sure, one can use different methodologies and still come to similar conclusions when they use the same data. Look, I could take a poll of IAB's political leanings and use as a sample the views of 5cats, myself, Grendel, and McGovern1981 and come to the conclusion that 97.1% of IAB is conservative. Now you can take that data rework it with a different methodology and would probably still come to the same conclusion based on the data I provided to you. Simply having a different methodology doesn't mean that the errors produced in earlier studies are wiped out.
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 9:08 pm
            "Approaches that have been employed to assess expert views on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) include analysing peer-reviewed climate papers (Oreskes 2004; C13), surveying members of the relevant scientific community (Bray and von Storch 2007, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Bray 2010, Rosenberg et al 2010, Farnsworth and Lichter 2012, Verheggen et al 2014, Stenhouse et al 2014, Carlton et al 2015), compiling public statements by scientists (Anderegg et al 2010), and mathematical analyses of citation patterns (Shwed and Bearman 2010)." -> Are you suggesting only one survey was completed and recycled?
          • Profile photo of richanddead
            richanddead Male 18-29
            3707 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 10:10 pm
            @jay: I'm just going to reply on the bottom, it's starting to get a little complex finding the most recent reply. As far as the expert / non-expert issue, we don't know how much data was interpreted by so called "non-experts" I don't feel like going through his entire study, the studies his study cites, and so on so forth. All we do know is that despite Cook chastising others for using "non-experts," Cook himself has used the data of "non-experts" which is my point. We also know that those non-experts did more than writing letters to authors and such, but actually processed data. In the study that I cited of his no authors were asked anything, and we know from his 2013 study that half of his reaserch team quit because they found conducting a study to be too hard, indicating that they too were not experts. As far as the 2.8% being consistent with the 2.9%, again it goes back to the samples collected, if you have a sample of 5cats, myself, Grendel, and McGovern1981 and you find that on 2.8% of issues on IAB we take a leftist view, you're analysis is correct in saying that there is 2.8% didn't support conservative views, but that is not an accurate representation of the views of all IAB. Do you understand what I'm saying in my example? Also no I'm not saying that one survey was completed and recycled, but we do know that things like the data in some of those studies are used in some of the other studies mentioned, which affects those studies. There is also no mention of the studies that I linked that looked at consensus data and came to different results, which in my opinion shows evidence that this study is as biased as the previous studies done by those authors.
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 17, 2016 at 1:11 am
            "As far as the expert / non-expert issue.." -> I think we'll have to agree disagree. - "I don't feel like going through his entire study" -> Fair. I didn't feel like paying to access your links.
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 17, 2016 at 1:20 am
            "Do you understand what I'm saying in my example?" -> I believe so, but then we're not dealing with just one analysis of views expressed.
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 17, 2016 at 3:49 am
            ...or necessarily one sample set: "The studies in table 1 have taken various approaches to selecting and querying pools of experts...Shwed and Bearman (2010) employed citation analysis of 9432 papers on global warming and climate published from 1975 to 2008. Unlike surveys or classifications of abstracts, this method was entirely mathematical and blind to the content of the literature being examined."
          • Profile photo of richanddead
            richanddead Male 18-29
            3707 posts
            July 17, 2016 at 11:26 am
            @jay: "I believe so, but then we're not dealing with just one analysis of views expressed." Are you sure because just from my end it doesn't sound like you are. I'm not saying we are dealing with only one analysis or one sample set but rather only the analysis's of those who agree with the author's views. They are including the studies that agree with them and fail to mention any consensus studies that don't.
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 17, 2016 at 9:38 pm
            And they didn't include the work of James L. Powell (99.99%)
  2. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    7301 posts
    July 15, 2016 at 11:08 am
    This is more @5Cats bullshit. If we all flood in here and comment on it we are just asking @fancylad to post more of this drivel.
  3. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7751 posts
    July 15, 2016 at 11:38 am
    True. for what it is worth, my esteemed Mother is extremely reliable and able in a related field. I always ask her when the abstracts are beyond me.. 'cause the great thing is you can check this stuff yourself.
  4. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1122 posts
    July 15, 2016 at 1:23 pm
    I thought this was great. I like hearing a coherent explanation of the other sides point of view and I thought this was quite well thought out except for the "high percentage of autism from vaccines" cheap shot. A significant percent do get a small rash however. Anyway, He is missing the point that scientists agree that climate change is real and climate change is bad. Just the same as he scientists agree that side affects to vaccines are real and side effects are bad. In both cases we should try to limit the bad while maximizing the good. We should try to reduce side effects whilst obtaining the benefits of vaccines. We should try to reduce climate change whilst still attempting to obtain the benefits of energy. The pitch misses this when he just says we should take vaccines despite the bad, that is true but we should still try to reduce the bad to something we are all willing to accept.
    • Profile photo of 5Cats
      5Cats Male 50-59
      34219 posts
      July 15, 2016 at 2:16 pm
      Yes RPossum, one side has told nothing but lies about the other. We "skeptics" DO say the Earth is getting warmer, we don't "deny" it. It has been for 300+ years, since the 'Little Ice Age' and for THOUSANDS of years since the Great Ice Age. NO ONE denies this. >>>We should not destroy our economy based on what MIGHT happen if it gets a TINY bit warmer. Because if it isn't 100% human-caused? HOW could we possibly alter the climate of the ENTIRE EARTH? That is just physically impossible without destroying ourselves in the process. >>> Everyone agrees the climate is "changing"... that's what climate DOES! it NEVER stays the exact same for decades on end, right? Never. It has been warmer in the past (AGW denies this) it has naturally gotten warmer in the past (AGW denies this) and humans are NOT 100% the cause of all warming since 1900 (or whenever the CO2 started going up). Period!
      • Profile photo of broizfam
        broizfam Male 60-69
        5212 posts
        July 16, 2016 at 12:31 pm
        "HOW could we possibly alter the climate of the ENTIRE EARTH? That is just physically impossible without destroying ourselves in the process."..................................... Maybe that's the attitude that makes the fanatically anti-AGW conservatives believe that humans are having no effect at all, which is just as moronically ridiculous as the attitude of the AGW fanatics saying that it's caused purely by humans. The huge volume of pollutants we're pumping into the atmosphere has to be having at least some effect. Since air circulates worldwide, it has to have a world wide effect; ie. the "ENTIRE EARTH" gets affected. Is it adding enough of an effect to natural warming that we can make a meaningful contribution to its reduction? I don't know. What I do know is that ignorantly refusing to recognize that possibility, as currently demonstrated by the Republican (Big Business) Party, sets us up for what may be an avoidable future disaster to be suffered by our descendants, and that, quite frankly, is really fucking stupid.
        • Profile photo of 5Cats
          5Cats Male 50-59
          34219 posts
          July 16, 2016 at 5:14 pm
          broizfam: Look, it's a moot point that we "could" alter the Global Climate for the worst if we wanted to: nuclear winter wouldn't be very pleasant, and if we deliberately destroyed things we "could" alter it, a little, sure. However? Imagining we can MANIPULATE the temperature of the Earth AT WILL is pure and utter bullshit. We cannot even manipulate a single tornado, ok? Now multiply that by a few billion: that is the amount of energy we are talking about. And ALL the gasses emitted by human activity is a TINY % of what is already in the atmosphere. Can it cause some change? Maybe. But maybe not. There's not one shred of proof so far that ONLY humans are causing AGW. None, zero. >>> "Cures" like Kyoto and Paris are FICTION. They are based on impossible "goals" for one thing. For a second? The amount of "change" they would cause IF FULLY MET (which is impossible, remember) is microscopic: below the margin of error over the century it would take to measure their predicted effects. And thirdly: these are "modeled" results, not science, forecast over 100 years into the future. The same "models" which are 100% wrong for predicting the past 20 years. They cannot predict the FIRST 20 years, but 80 years from now they'll have pin-point accuracy? Bullshit. And spending HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS and destroying the economy is NOT a solution, it is a truly human-caused disaster.
          • Profile photo of 5Cats
            5Cats Male 50-59
            34219 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 5:33 pm
            Does human activity "alter the atmosphere" and thus affect the temperature? Sure, a little bit. But that is NOT what AGW says: they say it is "human caused" ie: 100%. Anyone who believes that is willfully ignorant. >>> The facts, like actual global warming for over 100 years BEFORE the CO2 started rising, and that temps have been rising & falling (without any human help) for 5000+ years are incontrovertible. Unless you're an AGW fanatic, of course, they can ignore ANY fact! :-p
          • Profile photo of 7eggert
            7eggert Male 30-39
            270 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
            It's easy to cook an alphabet soup, but it's hard to make it spell Shakespeare. ### In order to heat up the earth, you just need to generally decrease the amount of heat escaping or to increase the amount of heat received. We do both. CO₂ and other gases will reduce the amount of infrared light escaping, reheating the earth until it eventually escapes. Our pollution result in darker surface being exposed, more energy being converted to heat. These effects are multiplied by the amount of sunlight we receive. Given a few years time, we can shift the climate even though the initial change is small. Also, given a few years time, the tornado will be gone ...
          • Profile photo of broizfam
            broizfam Male 60-69
            5212 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 8:15 pm
            "Imagining we can MANIPULATE the temperature of the Earth AT WILL is pure and utter bullshit"........I agree. But that's not even remotely what we're talking about. What we're talking about is trying to reduce our contribution to a warming that may become significantly more dangerous as a result of that contribution. And not everyone who believes that AGW exists thinks it's the sole cause of Global Warming. Stop painting everyone with the same brush or I'm going to have to assume that you want ALL Muslims barred from entering the country just because some idiot conservatives think that that's what we should do. Yes, there are those fanatics who disregard Earth's climate history and think Global Warming must be entirely due to our activity. They don't speak for all of us any more than ISIS speaks for all Muslim people, or any more than the KKK speaks for all whites. Also, climate changes, as you know, take a long time and incorporate many factors. A result of this is that being correct over a long period is more likely than being correct over a short term. In terms of climate, 20 years is a very short term. And pinpoint accuracy is not only NOT expected, it's not necessary. Being reasonably close to a prediction of a really poor outcome, still predicts a poor outcome. And why is it that every time you bring up the economics of trying to reduce our contribution to AGW the price of it goes up? It was once billions, then trillions, now hundreds of trillions. Next week you'll be saying it'll cost quadrillions.
          • Profile photo of jay
            jay Male 30-39
            2215 posts
            July 17, 2016 at 2:30 am
            @broizfam : "Yes, there are those fanatics who disregard Earth's climate history and think Global Warming must be entirely due to our activity." -> There are those that believe the earth is supposed to be currently within a glacial period, naturally exhibiting a cooling trend. In which case, human activity would in fact be completely responsible for the currently observed warming trend. I think most view the earth as coming to the end of an interglacial period, warming at an accelerating rate. I think most attribute the current warming trend largely to human activity, but not exclusively. @5Cats just tries for his strawman of "100%" so he can try to point to any natural contributer of greenhouse gases and claim "victory". I'd be surprised if anyone believed 'the climate didn't change until humans'.
          • Profile photo of broizfam
            broizfam Male 60-69
            5212 posts
            July 17, 2016 at 6:01 am
            @jay : As do so many people, 5Cats states just about everything in absolutes because that supports his arguments better.
  5. Profile photo of bliznik
    bliznik Male 30-39
    968 posts
    July 15, 2016 at 1:29 pm
    Is it really fact-filled if there are ZERO citations to support his arguments? The presentation IS very persuasive and pretty, I have to admit. But let's look at one of his statements: "But the vast majority of papers don’t say that human beings are the main cause of recent warming. In fact, one analysis showed that less than 2 percent of papers actually said that." Which analysis? Was this analysis peer reviewed? How many papers were reviewed and how did that author categorize the word "papers"? There's definitely disingenuous fact manipulation going on here, but it seems like Alex Epstein is the one who is manipulating the facts and obfuscating the data.
    • Profile photo of 5Cats
      5Cats Male 50-59
      34219 posts
      July 15, 2016 at 2:24 pm
      Bliznik: He is speaking about the SPECIFIC set of papers which were "reviewed" to arrive at the 97% Consensus conclusion. It is a publicly known list and has been looked at several times. NOT ONCE has anyone arrived at 97% though, except the first time. 80% tops, 40-50% most often, and yes only 2% actually (by name) claim Human-caused Global Warming in their content. >>>These are a very limited set of papers published by members of that specific group AFTER the anti-agw people were purged from it... this is never admitted by the AGW crowd, so it's not surprising few people know about it. >>> In fact? Even people who were told their paper supported AGW said that particular paper said NO such thing... and they are AGW supporters! Just NOT that paper which is included in the false 97%. Got it? Confusing I know, eh? :-) It's been on IAB before, I think?
      • Profile photo of jay
        jay Male 30-39
        2215 posts
        July 15, 2016 at 4:03 pm
        "Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics." (Link above)
    • Profile photo of richanddead
      richanddead Male 18-29
      3707 posts
      July 16, 2016 at 1:14 pm
      @bliznik: Here is one of the papers you asked for, it is peer-reviewed, and it used the exact same papers and data that Cook used in his study. I don't think it is the one referenced in the video though because it shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus which is far less than 2% mentioned, there are a lot for and against the view, this one for example but I don't feel like going on a massive search for the one he mentioned. Also to jay's point about Tol not being a non-expert, Cook only brings that up when he wants to discredit someone. If you look at my comment above, Cook regularly employs non-experts like Rob Honeycutt who is and runs a bicycle messenger buisness in San Francisco and has no degree, link. You're absolutly correct that there is definitely disingenuous fact manipulation going on here. Companies like Exxon mobile will support AGW funding when bills that pressure coal companies are being voted on, but will fund skeptics when bills that pressure oil are being voted on. Politicians love it because it's a problem that they can decry but not have to show any real results in actually solving, success is measured in how much money they allocate to "fix" the problem. The other side likes it because they can use it as evidence as reckless spending and government interference. Yet none of this really matters, trying to prove a point on consensus is nothing but the Bandwagon Fallacy which is faulty logic in itself.
  6. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    5029 posts
    July 15, 2016 at 2:14 pm
    Sorry I went into my full 5cats AGW thread nonsense off the bat. The presenter makes a very persuasive argument. In fact I'd prefer these types. However, it does fail on a couple of levels. I'd like to see his sourcing before commenting further.
    • Profile photo of 5Cats
      5Cats Male 50-59
      34219 posts
      July 15, 2016 at 2:30 pm
      nf2: I've posted the many sources many times on IAB, you've probably seen them yourself... and ignored them, as usual. There was a SPECIFIC set of published papers which that group "reviewed" and decided 97% supported AGW. The papers are known, and no one else has ever come close to 97% support because MOST say nothing about human-causes or even warming! Just talk about "change" & it was counted in the 97%... which is pure bullshit, I hope you can agree! Change is what climate does! It ALWAYS changes, it always has! Publishing a paper noting SOME change (even cooling) does NOT count as "Supporting AGW Theory" even you can agree with that nf2, surely! Especially when several of the authors came right out and said that!
      • Profile photo of 5Cats
        5Cats Male 50-59
        34219 posts
        July 15, 2016 at 2:34 pm
        No one else reviewing that one set of published papers I mean. OTHER studies have been done on OTHER sets of papers, but the "97% Consensus" comes from ONE specific review of THESE papers and none other. Other people reviewing the SAME set of papers say it is bullshit: not nearly 97% by any measure. Most say half or less. That includes the writers of some of the papers! Hope that's clearer now...
  7. Profile photo of ArgusTuft
    ArgusTuft Male 50-59
    1253 posts
    July 15, 2016 at 2:47 pm
    LOL. This guy even teaches the bible as fact! What a credible source he is! https://rewire.news/article/2015/04/30/conservatives-spend-millions-proselytizing-school-children/
  8. Profile photo of CaptKangaroo
    CaptKangaroo Male 50-59
    2507 posts
    July 15, 2016 at 6:33 pm
    Does the Earth cycle through warmer times and cooler times? Yep, lot's of science to back that up. Can things that Humans do effect these cycles? I would think so, but i have not read any studies focused on that; Merely deniers or alarmists. Seems like - just as in Copernicus' day - non-scientific influences try to determine facts based on the wants and/or desires of the influential. MY beliefs are that one can shit in a closed ecosystem just so much before changes to that ecosystem become apparent. And if one concedes that, then one can imagine that there must be a tipping point to a spiral event or system collapse- even if one can't determine when. My humble, unprofessional, not bought-and-paid-for, or dictated to me by a skygod opinion.
  9. Profile photo of Dead-Kittens
    Dead-Kittens Male 30-39
    1202 posts
    July 15, 2016 at 7:12 pm
    Anyone who disqualifies 'change' in any way, shape or form over time is in no way qualified to call themselves scientific...the only question is how quickly and in what way.
    • Profile photo of richanddead
      richanddead Male 18-29
      3707 posts
      July 16, 2016 at 1:24 pm
      @Dead-Kittens: I would agree with you, I think the main question is are humans the main climate forcers, which is a question that I have rarely seen explored. The climate definitely changes, and even an ant fart produces gases that can change the climate, but I don't think many would say that the ant fart is the main climate forcer that is responsible for the changes in the climate that we observe today. Now obviously humans produce far more and different types of gases, but the point remains the same.
      • Profile photo of 7eggert
        7eggert Male 30-39
        270 posts
        July 16, 2016 at 6:53 pm
        You can do carbon dating on ant farts and burned coals. Fossil carbon lost it's radioactive component so we can tell them apart. ### Cosmic rays will create radioactive carbon, so the natural carbon cycle has a pretty fixed amount of that. The non-radioactive carbon is increasing, the other gases we'd expect from volcanoes aren't there.
        • Profile photo of richanddead
          richanddead Male 18-29
          3707 posts
          July 16, 2016 at 8:40 pm
          @7eggert: Yes which is why you'll find that I said "Now obviously humans produce far more and different types of gases, but the point remains the same." The question is are humans the main forcers of climate, not do humans produce carbon, or are volcanoes producing carbon.
          • Profile photo of 7eggert
            7eggert Male 30-39
            270 posts
            July 17, 2016 at 10:48 am
            I didn't want to contradict, but to confirm your findings. Especially those on ant farts :-)
  10. Profile photo of casaledana
    casaledana Male 60-69
    440 posts
    July 15, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    Of course the climate is changing yesterday it rained and today it didn't. I don't trust anything that says 97% of people that agree on anything. Its statistically improbable.
    • Profile photo of normalfreak2
      normalfreak2 Male 18-29
      5029 posts
      July 16, 2016 at 6:17 am
      @Casaledana No, not if they are using something call evidence it isn't. As the video stated they weren't arguing that Climate change wasn't happening. They said they agreed it was. They dissented on the cause.
      • Profile photo of 5Cats
        5Cats Male 50-59
        34219 posts
        July 16, 2016 at 7:24 am
        Of course: Literally no one is claiming the climate never changes, except the AGW supports themselves, who claim there is ONE ideal temperature and ANY deviation spells global disaster. Which is bullshit since it has been MUCH warmer in the past & humanity and all animal life FLOURISHED. >>> Yes some places got worse & suffered, but MANY MORE places erupted in prosperity, that is how ALL changes are: some gain, some stay the same, some lose. Just claiming a tiny % of humanity will suffer and thus we should spend TRILLIONS on wind power is dumb. Because even with ALL the proposed "green changes" the temperature will still rise... almost exactly as much as the skeptics say it will! YES, we say it will rise Globally by about +1.1C by 2100... +/- 0.2C Skeptics have said that consistently from the very start.
        • Profile photo of 5Cats
          5Cats Male 50-59
          34219 posts
          July 16, 2016 at 7:29 am
          And "all the proposed changes" are a fairy tale: they will NEVER EVER happen, it's all a big lie. The CO2 will not fall, Ixdia and Chixa will NEVER lower their pollution, the temperature will never be altered by such a tiny change in human activity (5% of our CO2 emissions will do FUCK ALL) and those trillions would have been much better spent helping the affected people rather than lining the pockets of billionaires... who do you think builds and owns all those bloody expensive & tax-subsidised "green power" stations? Billionaires are making free money off "green projects" and their politician friends are quite happy to keep it that way.
          • Profile photo of 7eggert
            7eggert Male 30-39
            270 posts
            July 16, 2016 at 7:17 pm
            One of the most effective ways to protect the environment is not spending your money on oil, not paying $$$ to sheiks who will secretly support the IS. Also by reducing wasteful consumption, you get better air, less health bills to pay. ### I don't know about your electricity bills; in Europe, we'd pay about the same amount with or without having green energy, but for fossil energy, we depend on and pay Russia and Saudi Arabia instead of our own b*stards.

Leave a Reply