- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
Given that there exist conflicting opinions in the scientific community, how did you determine which one to accept?
Given that there exist conflicting opinions in the scientific community, how did you determine which one to accept?The opinions of scientists who are experts at this sort of analysis.
Given that there exist conflicting opinions in the scientific community, how did you determine which one to accept?
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 ?
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 ?
So when the science experts in the field differ, you side with the majority? Is that your sole basis for dismissal of the other experts in the field? Or did you examine the opinions of the minority before dismissing them from consideration and if so what was your basis for doing so?The majority view of those expert in the field.
The majority view of those expert in the field.
The majority view of those expert in the field.
So when the science experts in the field differ, you side with the majority? Is that your sole basis for dismissal of the other experts in the field? Or did you examine the opinions of the minority before dismissing them from consideration and if so what was your basis for doing so?
Given that you presumably understand the importance of CO2 (one of the purported greenhouse gases);an essential gas, catering to the survival needs of many species of flora and fauna on this planet, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is okay to side with the opinion of those scientists arguing for its reduction?
LMAO and so we go around the circle of subterfuge once more.
As expected the Greens on this forum will not give up..
I am repeating my post #7072 and if I repeat if every day more and more people will begin to understand what CO2 is all about.
I can see fron your post that you have much in common with those that have accepted a given ideology and trusted that those promoting it had done their homework.
However, before aligning with a campaign to put an end to something or other, it would be wise to first make a sincere attempt to understand what it actually is. Actions taken based upon misinformation tend to cause more problems than they actually solve.
What campaign?
The campaign of researchers and all national scientific bodies all over the world to scare non-believers with their research?
Skepticism is good. Just it's a bit stupid when the overwhelming number of experts tell you one thing you decided not to believe them because... because you haven't studied it yourself so you can't decide.
So anyone who believe the Climate Scientists will now have to spend decades studying and reviewing all the literatures... if they can't or don't have time to do that, then they're just sheep following some "elite"?
Mind. Blown.
-------
Anyway, here's the link to NASA (yea, the group of idiots that somehow managed to send Man to the Moon, study the Solar System and stuff):
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)
View attachment 66581
-------
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Abstract
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. ..
We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
---
same paper:
1. Introduction
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned...
Tol's erroneous conclusions stem from conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent"
As I stated before, the Greens believe if you keep promoting lies, propaganda and manipulation of the truth, some will believe it.....
Yes, you are living proof of that statement.
lol
https://twitter.com/search?q=Antarctic&src=tren
What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA
A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...tarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pure Climate Skeptic @Carbongate
What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA http://shr.gs/SVq5yQZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Pratt @Jackthelad1947 16m16 minutes ago Perth, Western Australia
Antarctic loss could double sea level rise by 2100, scientists say http://wapo.st/231PA2g?tid=ss_tw-bottom … #Auspol Demand #ClimateAction #VoteGreenin2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
:hammer: it home
Here we go again....back on the same old MERRY-G0- ROUND.
97% of what consensus?...Even the IPCC have doubts.
Are we really getting any wear with this discussion?..I think not but if one does not counter attack on the subject then the Greens will get the upper hand.
As I stated before, the Greens believe if you keep promoting lies, propaganda and manipulation of the truth, some will believe it.....
Even the IPCC are having doubts on Global Warming or Climate Change...They are very confused and have to update and change there reports every 6 or 7 years.
Read the link below and the many comments that follow.
It is now predicted by some that we may have a mini cie age by 2100.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/
If the IPCC doesn’t produce its own research, why should I care about its assessment report?
Even if you keep up to date on the latest climate research, perhaps even going straight to the source and reading the scientific literature, your knowledge couldn’t match that of the combined understanding of hundreds of collaborating climate scientists. Some research contradicts other research, and it’s the job of these scientists to reconcile those differences.
The IPCC scientists take almost all of the recent climate research, judge it, and synthesize it to produce succinct conclusions about sea-level rise, hurricanes, ocean acidification, and the like in a warming world.
Wait ”” why did you just say “almost” all of the recent climate research?
New research is being produced all the time, and the IPCC had to draw a line and exclude research produced after a certain date. For this latest report, that date was July 31, 2013.
Are the drafts kept secret?
They’re supposed to be, but some drafts have been leaked, which has fueled controversies and media coverage, some of which has been deliberately misleading. That pisses off those in charge at the IPCC because the drafts inevitably contain statements and projections that will be changed before the final report is released. That’s why they’re called drafts. “The unauthorized and premature posting” of drafts could “lead to confusion,” the IPCC has warned [PDF] ”” over and over again, as new leaks have sprung.
Why are some climate scientists dissing this report?
Fears abound that the projections included in this latest report, alarming though they may be, will be lowball numbers. While deniers scream that the IPCC is exaggerating the scale of the climate crisis, some climate scientists are saying the report will actually be loaded with understatements.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that scientists’ most extreme projections about sea-level rise appear to have been rejected as “outliers” by Working Group I. But the most conservative, low levels of forecast temperature rise were treated as credible and incorporated into drafts of the report.
Some scientists also question whether these reports, which come out only a couple of times a decade, serve policymakers as well as they could. Now that the basics of climate science are well established and new research is being constantly published, does it make sense to spend years compiling bumper reports? It’s a question that the IPCC is asking itself too. “What sort of products should the IPCC be producing, over what kind of time scale?” IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn wondered aloud to a reporter recently. “Do we need this blockbuster report every six or seven years or do we need more frequent reports?”
zlop coolplanet • 2 years ago
"Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling. “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet. The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100"
Thumbnail
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?