Nuh. I referenced an earlier post which detailed an analysis on the rapidly changing climatic conditions in Canada. Basically much hotter, much earlier, less snow melt. These have all contributed to creating a far more dangerous forest fire situation.
The argument is not about climate change "causing" this fire. It's about how the rapidly warming ecosystems of the area are creating far more favourable conditions for a fire to become uncontrollable.
Artist also posted a reference which detailed how this increase in fire risk is happening throughout the world as temperatures rise.
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
from post #7578
So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.
You still don't appear to know how many of those 97% represent the total number of scientist...There is no point in quoting 97% if you don't know how many.
I've heard of climate shifting South at something like 8 miles per day in the Northern Hemisphere but season shifting... just past couple years or past 20 years where SirR read it's been the hottest on record?
Anyway, when's the last time 97% of any group agree on anything?
I have read all sorts of things also.
The seasons do appear to be gradually shifting forward. Whilst I cannot conclusively prove this to be the case, I believe that the temperature records are lending support to this observation.
As to the claims of the "elite" 97%, I won't be buying what they're selling until such time as they start to back their claims up with some rigorous scientific proof.
The publication of numerous papers, asserting unproven conjectures as factual, really only serves to confuse the issue and potentially damage the reputation of science.
If one is unwilling to take the time to understand the scientific basis for any claim being made, then one cannot automatically conclude that a scientific basis actually exists!
I thought Explod answered you pretty well.
True that we can't just take people's words because they have this or that title. True too that just because it's published doesn't mean it's objective and beyond reproach.
But if you want scientific proof and indepth evidence, Basilio and others here can help you. Me I'm just a layman.
From a layman's perspective, and from knowing first hand the extensive literature review and scientific rigour requires in carrying out an experiment and come to a conclusion that your finding is not by chance or accidental... the standards are pretty high.
With high standards being required to conclude either way, and with 97% of research published having concluded one way. You tell a layman like me who should I believe?
It's not 50/50, maybe this or could also be that...the science are in.
Sure we can ask for specific evidence - all of them... can also ask for specific headcounts of scientists....
that or maybe open the window or take a hike through the mountain to see for ourselves.
I know a couple who travel practically everywhere around the world. Their trip are always to mainly hike and camp... they told me Climate Change is definitely here. So much so that they're willing to pay some 3 times more to only use electricity from renewable source.
luutzu, I am more than ever convinced you do not have a number associated with your 97%.......So I will give up asking you.......You and explod have been skirting around the issue because you either simply don't know or you are using fictitious data to make it look good.
Thanks for that lutzuu. Unfortunately I do not share your confidence in the claims that the "science are in". From what I have observed thus far, the offerings are so heavily opinionated, that I am of the current view that the climate "science" is too far removed from scientific practices to be seriously entertained as anything more than a demonstration of human folly.
There's a lot more to science than merely observing changes in nature, hence my reason for not insisting my observation of seasonal shifts be taken as proof of anything more than the observation in and of itself.
Noco, I posted a link to that article before.
You could go there yourself, read the paper yourself, then go nuts counting how many papers they included and of each paper how many authors.
So no one is skirting around the numbers - it's there, just some of us have movies to watch.
97% is certainly a bold claim. However, when people attempt to explain it, they often make mention of the fact that not all scientists were deemed relevant and were hence excluded from consideration. So in effect the 97% isn't reflective of all scientists, only those that the climate brigade qualified as relevant.luutzu, I am more than ever convinced you do not have a number associated with your 97%.......So I will give up asking you.......You and explod have been skirting around the issue because you either simply don't know or you are using fictitious data to make it look good.
Scientific conclusions work on probability... you're not going to find any scientific theory or evidence that will conclusively "prove" x cause y. Especially when there's a bunch of x causing a wide variation of y, and some a, b and c may also contribute depends on e, f, g being present or not. etc. etc.
Just read that the fire in Alberta doesn't seem to show any sign of stopping after 7 days. It got bigger, have its own weather pattern with lightning causing more fire.
Let's just hope the oil pipelines are deep enough underground or nowhere near it.
I'm sure that for the 88,000 residents who evacuated and most likely to lose their home, if there's a chance current human activities cause or add to chance of this kind of destruction happening... we should try to end it.
97% is certainly a bold claim. However, when people attempt to explain it, they often make mention of the fact that not all scientists were deemed relevant and were hence excluded from consideration. So in effect the 97% isn't reflective of all scientists, only those that the climate brigade qualified as relevant.
I think I can recall basilio helpfuĺly offering some insight into the qualification process some time ago.
Like so many others, eagerly awaiting presentation of some rigorous scientific proof of natural happenings and their causation, I hold deep reservations about the integrity of the process used to establish this claim to 97% agreement.
Back in the real world this is what is happening.
http://www.theguardian.com/global/c...e-refugees-louisiana-rising-seas-vicki-arroyo
As such, these climate alarmists actually do our planet the greatest disservice.
No, it's the people who say nothing needs to be done that do the greatest disservice.
Pray tell, what exactly is it that you believe yourself to know needs doing and what do you believe such action will achieve?
Whilst you're at it, could you also explain how it is that you know whatever it is that you think you know about whatever it is that you think needs to be done and how you know that such action will achieve the intended result?
The 97% claim has been thoroughly discredited in the real world. It is instructive that the alarmists continue to use this fraudulent stat.
Take your pick https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...rome..69i57.8597j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Modus operandi -
Make huge alarmist claim which gets headlines in the Grauniad and other branches of Pravda.
Claim gets analyzed and discredited by more level heads which gets almost no mainstream coverage.
Alarmists (including red tainted POTUS) perpetuate original discredited claim, safe in the knowledge that most will never see the rebuttals.
If rebuttals are known, Ad Hominem and Strawman (inter alia)argumentative fallacies are immediately employed to discredit the authors, san being able to discredit the actual rebuttal.
The 97% being the classic example.
Yet they still struggle to alarm the majority.
Reduce pollution of all types -> cleaner air , cleaner water, cleaner land, reduced greenhouse gases->slower global warming.
Do you really think that reducing pollution is a bad thing or will not produce a beneficial result to humanity ?
From your response it seems that you are of the opinion that the globe is warming and that this is a problem that may somehow be addressed by reducing "grèenhouse gases".
If I have understood you correctly, what is your basis for these beliefs?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?