The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by TheTaoOfBill, Sep 30, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...sessionid=893AAA8946476778E31859262CB06DE3.c1

    Another scientific survey of scientists has been releasing showing the widespread support of man-made climate change theories among scientists. Other surveys that specifically asked climate scientists have shown 9.8/10 climate scientists support man-made climate change theories.

    It's difficult for scientists to say climate change is not man-made when there isn't a single natural factor that can explain the changes we're seeing.
     
    DennisTate and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Even those of us who don't believe in man made global warming admit we contribute CO2 we simply don't believe its that big a deal as all animals on the planet do the same. I used to do polls for a living and its all about how the questions are worded. We would do test polls and then change the wording until we got the responses we wanted.

    There are plenty of natural factors. Maybe you think you are unnatural but I think I am as natural as anything else on this planet
     
  3. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's called the Sun. Your climate scientists are pretty damn stupid aren't they Bill.
     
  4. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,418
    Likes Received:
    51,228
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Culling dangerous sharks exacerbates climate change
    https://www.griffith.edu.au/environ...h-school-environment/staff/aprof-rod-connolly

    Far better to lose a few swimmers than to lose the entire planet.
     
  5. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The last time the Liberals trotted out a "Scientific Consensus" it was 100% debunked and proven to be a huge lie.

    There is one think you can count on with Liberals anymore. They will tell ANY LIE to push their agenda. They just do care about facts, truth, or data as long as they solution is to take more of your hard earned money and to gain more control over your life.

    Why is it the ONLY solution they have for climate change is redistribution of wealth and removal of freedoms? Talk about some authoritarian holes in asses... that is Modern Day Leftists in a nutshell.
     
  6. Divergent

    Divergent Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2015
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You remind me of my parents. Cow farts are different than Industrial Pollution in size. There are "smog days" in China where kids get out of school for factory smog. Have you ever seen a cow fart day?

    Sorry to poke fun at you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Professor Peabody still repeating everything the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch want him/her to repeat. Profits will take a hit if Global Warming is true. Seems 5 years after it's been deemed a fact, some still didn't get the memo.
     
  7. Divergent

    Divergent Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2015
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "The last time the Liberals trotted out a "Scientific Consensus" it was 100% debunked and proven to be a huge lie." ~ You mean the Ebola scare or the "Obama is going to take all your guns scare. Liberal means lot's of, even if it is lot's of lies.

    The Right Wing attacks Science because they fear it will prove Religion isn't real.

    What I told you Jesus was real but the people who wrote/published the book 95 years after his death added some things that don't comply with Christ. What If I told you a HUGE % of Christians are that way because of Science and what we don't understand in 2015 noting nature isn't that lucky/random. What if I told you some scares were made for profit and some scares are real and those who profit don't want to admit they are true because they might not get 4 billion, they will only get 3 billion.

    Welcome to Capitalism/Christian America. :eyepopping:
     
  8. smb

    smb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    4,736
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    At this point it is no use arguing over anything. Climate change is happening. The effects are real. We (humans) could do something about it but we won't...why...because we are inherently selfish. The only thing left is to pop some popcorn while we have it and enjoy the show.

    Arguing about what is so blatantly obvious is exhausting. Putting up with the endless ad-hom attacks, sophistry and purposeful ignorance is pointless. You might as take out your hammer and try to build a your own house. In theory it is possible that one day you may finish but in reality you will never even come close.

    People have too much invested in their own lives to worry about climate change until they are swimming in the ocean. Until then making another thread about climate change is as useful as 2.2L Dodge engine.
     
  9. Divergent

    Divergent Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2015
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  10. getinvolved

    getinvolved Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Anybody who denies climate change is just plain ignorant. Deniers complain that doing something will raise their taxes and their selfishness blinds them.
     
  11. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you keep repeating everything the Global Warming Profiteers want you to.

    Had we bought into it back in 1997, we'd never stop paying the scam ransom.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

    GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, RSS and UAH.

    Your wallet's getting taken to the cleaners and ya just can't see it.
     
  12. In The Dark

    In The Dark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So we're down with science by consensus, a show of hands?

    How about medicine by consensus?

    [​IMG]
     
  13. In The Dark

    In The Dark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The leftist have ONLY redistribution of wealth and removal of freedoms as 'solutions'. It's a black box function for every problem that generates the same 'solution'.
     
  14. Kurmugeon

    Kurmugeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Oh Bull!

    Those are not scientists, those are cheap, petty, silly, PC Propagandists.

    Real Science figured out a decade ago that climate change is real, it has ALWAYS been happening, and it is driven by solar spectrum changes and the Rayleigh Scattering of blue+ photons caused by atmospheric nitrogen.

    The last Ice Age, which occurred without any cars or oil, about 65,000 years ago, left most of North America under 200 feet of ice, was witnesses by stone age man, with a genetic code not much different than our own. They managed to survive with nothing but animal hides and flint tools, by ADAPTING to the changes.

    With all of our modern technology, we should find adapting to "Climate Change" a simple thing.... except for the rhetoric and demands by wack-job lefties.

    -
    -
     
  15. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah yes, the old 'liberal conspiracy to rob us' ploy again. Is there nothing conservatives aren't terrified of? Gays, Muslims, Mexicans, black people...
     
  16. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really? So the Industrial Revolution, coal and other fossil fuels contributed nothing? Seems like it's only a tiny and shrinking minority of die-hard conservatives who refuse to see what's right in front of them.
     
  17. Kurmugeon

    Kurmugeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Fact: The single eruption of Mt. St. Helen released 10X more CO2 into the air, than all of the Oil ever pulled to the surface... in just ONE volcanic explosion.

    Look it up!

    Natural sources of CO2 are huge compared to man made releases.

    And the greenhouse effect, because of the distribution of energy by spectrum, in Sol starlight, is effecting only the small amount of radiant energy in the Red and IR end of the spectrum. The portion of the spectrum in the blue, which would exhibit greenhouse effect, by internal refraction of the light, is countered by the Rayleigh Scattering, which re-directs the refracted radiant energy in ALL directions, including back out into space, countering the GH effect above 500 nm.

    image_gallery.jpg

    Conversely, the Rayleigh Scattering, which effects the direct, incoming Blue and UV end radiant energy, contains over 80% of the radiant energy of Sol starlight.

    Solar-Spectrum-GballEditz.png


    Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png


    Consequently, the Rayleigh Scattering and blue spectrum shift account for deviations in coupled solar flux 100X larger than the largest possible
    fluctuation in Green House captured Red and IR radiant energy.

    The scattering back out into space of Blue+ light accounts for many more Joules of energy, than the relatively very small amount of Joules of Red and IR light "Captured" by CO2 GH internal refraction.

    That is just the reality of black body radiation and spectral optics!

    Sorry, REAL SCIENCE proved AGW a bad theory a decade or more ago!

    -
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I bet 97% of those scientists don't know anything about climate science.
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, it is the other way around. The IPCC AR5 had to reduce the sensitivity of CO2 (sensitivity is probably the biggest debate in climate science). The hiatus had to be taken into account and skeptical scientists were right about natural variability having a greater affect making a bunch of advocates scramble to explain it away, now to the point of altering the temperature record to make it look worse.
     
  20. Grizz

    Grizz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    4,787
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I loved this part of the Abstract:

    Put another way, those who deny the science lack both credibility and maturity. It's also obvious that their arguments are primarily for political purposed (supporting fossil fuel companies) and have little to do with actual science, since most of their arguments (even on this thread) have been found lacking in credibility, yet they somehow keep believing that repeating them will make them true. Won't.
     
  21. For Topical Use Only

    For Topical Use Only Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deniers, lol.

    They're like turds floating in your kid's orange juice.
     
  22. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More baseless claims not that it makes any difference to the actual deniers of science that think science is settled.
     
  23. Kurmugeon

    Kurmugeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I believe they called Galileo nasty names too... and there wasn't the lure of 100s of Billions of Dollars and massive political control of every aspect of people's lives in contention when he debated the Helio-Centric Solar System Model.

    Maybe you should try to learn some real Black Body, Radiative Energy Coupling, and Spectral Optic SCIENCE, and then try to discuss AGW from an educated viewpoint?

    -
     
  24. Grizz

    Grizz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    4,787
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How many times do I have to tell you (and others) that science, real science, is never settled and always subject to change. However, when it comes to global warming, the evidence is solid as to the recent rise in global temps; no better explanations have come along; so the conclusion that it's our dumping massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is the reason to accept the anthropogenic theory. Now, until you and other deniers come along with a theory that accounts for the facts (which are not opinions) we have today, then you really have nothing.
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Our best datasets, the two satellite records show no increase for 18+ years and no statistically significant warming for 22+ years. Both use different methods and both show the same thing. The USCRN which requires no adjustment shows cooling in the US the last decade when it was started so basically only a short period of time did temperatures rise while CO2 rose and according to the IPCC, the significant period of CO2 started in the 50's but temperatures only rose from the late 70's to the late 90's. Right now the temperatures have been flat for as long as they rose.

    The latest GISS has been adjusted/estimated again to make the past cooler and the present warmer (as it has every adjustment) by adopting the Karl et. al. paper (which made the hiatus magically disappear) that decided ship intake temperatures were better than the readings from buoys that were designed for science. The US is 6% of the land mass but makes up 39% of the temperature record. 66% of the temperature record is adjusted/estimated from the raw data (which does not show warming either). There is also the problem of using water temperature to determine atmospheric temperatures. This dataset has been adjusted so much that it would be hard to take it seriously but since it magically made the hiatus that all other datasets show, disappear, it is the new darling of the advocates. Then there is the best US dataset, the USCRN, which is of course, not used because it would cause a problem for warming advocates.

    Correlation does not imply causation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page