Jump to content

Who here is a global warming skeptic?


Recommended Posts

 

 

Notice how it says "peer reviewed climate articles" compared to those who rejected it. I think it would be interesting to find the statistic to those, like me, who are neither supporters of global warming nor skeptics and think more studies should be done.

 

Those 14000 reports were all based on studies.

How many more studies would it take to convince you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 942
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data ga

Lots of things.   I am pretty well convinced that there is a problem with CO2 levels and decreasing Ph of the oceans. This could be serious indeed.   I am also convinced, based on isotope abundan

Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that clim

Posted Images

If 14000 reports, all based on studies, said that the Earth is flat, and Astrology is science, I still wouldn't be convinced.

 

Because it's too stupid to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If 14000 reports, all based on studies, said that the Earth is flat, and Astrology is science, I still wouldn't be convinced.

 

Because it's too stupid to be true.

 

But the earth is not flat, and astrology isn't science. The evidence isn't there to support the ideas, so you wouldn't get 14,000 scientific studies saying they were true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't understand why the idea of global weather change is so difficult to understand, if there some secrete pile of gold going to the scientist who proves it or something?


 

I can also read wikipedia.

 

Can I get a reference where red giants radiate away more energy?

 

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l6_p2.html

 

Thus, when the core reaches a critical density and temperature during its contraction, it can ignite hydrogen fusion in a thin shell outside of the helium core. The helium core will also continue to generate energy by gravitational contraction, too. If you think of the Main Sequence as the “hydrogen core fusion” stage of a star's life, the first stage after the Main Sequence is the hydrogen shell fusion stage. During this stage, the rate of nuclear fusion is much higher than during the Main Sequence stage, so clearly the star cannot stay in this stage as long. For a star like the Sun, it will only remain in this stage for a few hundred million or a billion years, less than 10% of the Sun's Main Sequence lifetime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If 14000 reports, all based on studies, said that the Earth is flat, and Astrology is science, I still wouldn't be convinced.

 

Because it's too stupid to be true.

If all the evidence showed that the Earth was flat, and none contradicted it, would you disagree with all the evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd disagree because the evidence must have been fabricated, and the figures fiddled, like in the Climategate scandal, which we're all supposed to have forgotten.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd disagree because the evidence must have been fabricated, and the figures fiddled, like in the Climategate scandal, which we're all supposed to have forgotten.

A citation and a motive is requested please...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd disagree because the evidence must have been fabricated, and the figures fiddled...

All 14,000 peer-reviewed articles? You think ALL of them were fabricated and used "fiddled figures?" That strains credulity. You're clearly basing your position on ideology and willful ignorance and not on any data or reason or rationality.

 

...like in the Climategate scandal, which we're all supposed to have forgotten.

Yes, you were supposed to have forgotten, because it was a nonsensical accusation in the first place.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks iNow - I appreciate the time and trouble you took to prepare your post #183.

 

But having read it, I'm still not convinced that "climate change", which is undoubtedly happening, as it has all through the Earth's history, is a modern phenomenon caused by human industrial activity.

 

I'm disturbed by quotations such as "Eight committees investigated and found....the scientific consensus...remained unchanged"

 

That doesn't sound good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But having read it, I'm still not convinced that "climate change", which is undoubtedly happening, as it has all through the Earth's history, is a modern phenomenon caused by human industrial activity.

 

Science-doesn-t-give-a-shit-what-you-bel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea... you might say, "Do you have a link to this that you could please share so I can look at how they pulled it together?" in the form of a request instead of using the tone of a demand. Just a thought. Do with it what you will. With that said... Here ya go:

 

http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html

Thank you, and I wasn't trying to be rude, if it came out like such then I apologize.

 

 

There have been 14000 peer reviewed articles which (at the very least) touch on climate change with over 33,000 different scientists working on them - 24 of these articles rejected the hypothesis. Why on earth would anyone who wasn't prejudiced or had been unduly swayed by adverse media coverage claim more work was needed? There is no longer a lack of scientific consensus - the data representation provided by iNow is designed to make that clear. There is however a concerted campaign by powerful and wealthy individuals and corporations to stall any change to our current practice and reverse that little progress we have made - this is done through the courts, the media, and direct political pressure.

With respect - science does not work by providing statistics of what percentage of laypersons agree/disagree/are neutral; popularity contests are the domain of television and politics not science. Unfortunately after failing to block scientific progress those who wish the destructive current position to continue moved their argument to a populist campaign based on rhetoric, petty politicisation, character assassination, and down-right lies; this has been largely successful. Voters, for some reason I cannot fathom, look at a statistic which states that out of 14000 articles only 24 dismiss the hypothesis of man-made global warming; and their response is "oh well more work is needed!" A stance of uninformed scepticism is no longer ethically viable; either get informed and make a decision or stop adding your weight to the dangerous policy of procrastination.

 

I am not denying global warming(or climate change, however it is said). I admit that humans, like any other species, affects the environment it is in. However, I don't just see it as it being completely caused by humans. I feel there are other factors involved. Our Earth is not simply just a closed ecosystem. Other things affect the system and changes should be expected.

 

What irritates me the most about climate change deniers is how it is claimed that since it is getting colder during some parts of the year that means climate change is a total fraud, and here is the reason why certain seasons get colder than others over time when working with the climate change model.

 

If there is an increase in heat then that means there is more separation of hot and cold air, or atmosphere. If the Earth is getting warmer, this means that there will be a larger separation between temperatures during times of the year when it gets warmer and cooler. This leads to a larger instability in weather around the world.

 

Is this completely attributed to human activity? I think there is more to the answer than just "Yes."

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't just see it as it being completely caused by humans.

Of course, and nobody who has even a remedial understanding of the topic would make such an argument.

 

I feel there are other factors involved. <...> Is this completely attributed to human activity? I think there is more to the answer than just "Yes."

Indeed, but the human contributions are the dominant ones right now. Here's a link summarizing the most common objections against the human impact on climate. To the right of each is a link to the scientific explanation (and data) of why each is a myth. Most pages are split into Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced response sections:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, and nobody who has even a remedial understanding of the topic would make such an argument.

 

Indeed, but the human contributions are the dominant ones right now. Here's a link summarizing the most common objections against the human impact on climate. To the right of each is a link to the scientific explanation (and data) of why each is a myth. Most pages are split into Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced response sections:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

The evidence they present seems quite convincing, but a question I want to ask if it is okay.

 

I took a look at this graph:

 

Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

 

The evidence is quite clear, but is there an explanation as to why at some points the carbon dioxide emission exceeds the temperature while at others the temperature exceeds the carbon dioxide emissions? I think it might be due to convergence of temperature and carbon-dioxide emissions, but just wanted to clear something up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that a more parsimonious explanation might be that carbon dioxide is not the only thing that impacts temperature. Some other agents could have acted to lower temps even as CO2 was serving to increase them. Stuff like ocean currents, shading from clouds or volcanic dust, solar irradiance, etc. all come to mind without much effort or thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geologists didn't give a shot for plate tectonics in 1950.

 

By 1970, they thought of little else.

in 1950 they didn't have a lot of evidence on the matter, by 1970, they had lots of evidence.

They probably didn't have 14000 papers demonstrating i, so, according to your approach, they still shouldn't have believed in tectonics.

I wonder if there are 14000 papers on the subject even today.

If not, to be consistent, you ought to disregard plate tectonics too.

Does that seem sensible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to pile on, but...

 

In scientific journals over the period from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, across 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 peer-reviewed authors, only ONE author rejects man-made global warming.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

 

Powell%20Pie%20Chart%202.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have doubts about global warming because whether it occurs or not is different from the issue of it being anthropogenic... The temperature of earth is not a simple linear function of CO2. There are several factors shaping the temperature on earth - it's albedo, composition of it's atmosphere, solar activity and distance from the sun. Each of these variables is composed of smaller variables and it is not completely understood how they affect the atmosphere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have doubts about global warming because whether it occurs or not is different from the issue of it being anthropogenic... The temperature of earth is not a simple linear function of CO2. There are several factors shaping the temperature on earth - it's albedo, composition of it's atmosphere, solar activity and distance from the sun. Each of these variables is composed of smaller variables and it is not completely understood how they affect the atmosphere.

It seems that about 9000 people looked into all that. Only one of them thinks it's not down to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Said another way:

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

It’s worth noting how many authors agree with the basic fact of global warming – more than nine thousand. And that’s just in a single year. Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Well, the split is more like somewhere between 33 to 63 % favour AGW hypothesis (depending on who appraises) Vs 0.7 to 1.8 % reject AGW hypothesis. There are a lot of papers that sit in the middle, not taking a stance either way. The fault of Powell's analysis is that he lumps those papers into the pro AGW camp (or at least he makes it looks that way). See my post #175 for sources.

 

If you look at the papers that take a stance it is something lie a:

 

97.5-2.5% split, plus or minus a few tens of a percent.

 

Just saying as the 99.99% type figure is getting bounded about a bit too readily in my opinion. It's still a strong scientific consensus, though. I am not a "denier".

Edited by billiards
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.