The Great Global Warming Swindle

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So what about May 2011? Is that too old too?

A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, ?The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,? collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents ? representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey?s specific standards ? work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.

97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that ?human-induced greenhouse warming? is now occurring.? Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
?There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50?50 chance that temperatures will rise? 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50?100 years.

?When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8?10), 44% moderate danger (4?7), and 13% little danger.?

The researchers conclude that the findings ?provide little support for criticisms that scientists? views on global warming are based on workplace pressures or desires to further their own careers or expand their public influence. We found disagreement over the future effects of climate change, but not over the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, it is possible that the growing public perception of scientific disagreement over the existence of anthropocentric warming, which was stimulated by press accounts of ?Climategate? [the 2009 hacked emails controversy] is actually a misperception of the normal range of disagreements that may persist within a broad scientific consensus.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/[/quote]
.[/quote]

?

Are you trying to tell me that nearly a 17% increase of CO2 from earlier levels in only 150 years is not worth investigating and probably is not effecting the Earth.

Also, are you trying to say that the countless scholarly peer reviewed articles and countless scientific groups that have agreed that global climate change is at least in part due to anthropogenic causes is wrong because of two articles from magazines?

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Thank you Raj. I was looking for something like that.

[/quote]

No worries

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Huh?

[/quote]

Don’t know how I can make it any clearer but I’ll try. This is from Webster’s Dictionary:

Consensus, n. unanimity; agreement. especially in opinion; hence, general opinion.

The author describes three different camps: those who don’t believe man-made climate change exists, those who do and those who believe it exists but have reservations about the science. That is not unanimity or agreement in opinion.

How do explain any of the past failures that the scientific community espoused? For example, how about transorbital lobotomies that were all the rage in the 60’s with psychiatric doctors? How do you explain why they all believed that burning out pieces of peoples’ brains would help them? I could explain some of the reasons but it’s not relevant. What’s relevant is the science which is largely bunkum. CO2 is essential for all life and has been at much higher concentrations throughout the earth’s history. It is not a pollutant. It comprises only a tiny fraction of a percent of greenhouse gases. The majority of greenhouse gas is condensation. The modeling used to determine CO2’s effect on the climate has been completely distorted to support the theories and careers of pseudo-scientists and eco-corporatists.

Err…okay. Third paragraph, “Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz” and from the paper cited and linked - The Swiss Federal Research Institute, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Institute for Coastal Research, HZG Research Centre, School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St Andrews, Department of Geography, Climatology, Climate Dynamics and Climate Change, Justus-Liebig University and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that nearly a 17% increase of CO2 from earlier levels in only 150 years is not worth investigating and probably is not effecting the Earth.
[/quote]

Is is being investigated. See the OP for example.

[quote]
Also, are you trying to say that the countless scholarly peer reviewed articles and countless scientific groups that have agreed that global climate change is at least in part due to anthropogenic causes is wrong because of two articles from magazines?[/quote]

No…that’s not what I’m trying to say…?

Water is the primary greenhouse agent. I haven’t looked into that one much, but off hand I would think the best solution to anthropogenic gaseous H2O and condensation would be better methods of cooling the water generated as waste and ways of capturing and recycling that water even more so. I do wish there were more studies and articles easily available on that one with all the talk about CO2 and methane.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Don’t know how I can make it any clearer but I’ll try. This is from Webster’s Dictionary:

Consensus, n. unanimity; agreement. especially in opinion; hence, general opinion.

The author describes three different camps: those who don’t believe man-made climate change exists, those who do and those who believe it exists but have reservations about the science. That is not unanimity or agreement in opinion.[/quote]

So wait. Because there are a small group of scientists who disagree with human-related climate change it’s wrong to say there’s a consensus? Is that what you’re saying?

It even says several times there is a scientific consensus . Did you look at other link as well?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

How do explain any of the past failures that the scientific community espoused? For example, how about transorbital lobotomies that were all the rage in the 60’s with psychiatric doctors? How do you explain why they all believed that burning out pieces of peoples’ brains would help them? I could explain some of the reasons but it’s not relevant. What’s relevant is the science which is largely bunkum. [/quote]

Science is a self correcting process. As new information comes to light, it adjust and changes. Are you arguing that one day we could find out one day man made climate change is bunk? If so I don’t disagree. Everything in science comes with an asterisk beside it that says: based on the best and most current data available. Tell me something, doesn’t this asterisk come along any statement of fact you make to other people? Therefore, is it reasonable to expect a statement from a scientist to not come with such a caveat?

Have you ever been to a doctor, do you eat food, are you aware we put a man on the moon, do you wear glasses? All these things are science in action. There is good reason to rely on the findings of science and you know it.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Err…okay. Third paragraph, “Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz” and from the paper cited and linked - The Swiss Federal Research Institute, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Institute for Coastal Research, HZG Research Centre, School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St Andrews, Department of Geography, Climatology, Climate Dynamics and Climate Change, Justus-Liebig University and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.[/quote]

These are just the institutions the individuals who wrote the study belong to. The organizations I listed for you explicitly state support of the idea that man-made climate change is occurring. This is not the same thing.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
There is consensus in the scientific community that human-caused global warming is real.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html

[/quote]

No there isn’t. Additionally, the article that you linked to describes a lack of consensus. Furthermore, it is more than two years old.[/quote]

The paper shows that “the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement” on climate change, says climate science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. “Those who don’t agree, are, unfortunatelyâ??and this is hard to say without sounding elitist–mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers.”

Edit: Finished reading it. This article is not convincing either way. ah well.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
So we are dumping basic shit into it to neutralize acidic effects?
[/quote]

There’s ideas floating around like doing something like that to oceans. Or putting millions of tiny mirrors in space to deflect solar radiation and putting aerosols into the atmosphere that reflect sun rays back into space but so little is known about what the effects of doing these things would do and it would be a huge feat too.

Simply put, it’s too expensive and wildly unpredictable.[/quote]

It would be horrifically stupid to try.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
There is consensus in the scientific community that human-caused global warming is real.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html

[/quote]

No there isn’t. Additionally, the article that you linked to describes a lack of consensus. Furthermore, it is more than two years old.[/quote]

Yes there is.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

“there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change”

“Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”

http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

You won’t find a scientific body that states otherwise

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l’AcadÃ?©mie des Sciences et Techniques du SÃ?©nÃ?©gal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm[/quote]

What’s your solution?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

So wait. Because there are a small group of scientists who disagree with human-related climate change it’s wrong to say there’s a consensus? Is that what you’re saying?

[/quote]

Small? There is no consensus.

After describing a lack of consensus.

Yes.

[quote]
These are just the institutions the individuals who wrote the study belong to. The organizations I listed for you explicitly state support of the idea that man-made climate change is occurring. This is not the same thing.[/quote]

That’s just being pedantic. An institution is comprised of its members.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

That’s just being pedantic.[/quote]

No, it’s really not. For instance there are several creationists who work at prominent institutions but the school itself doesn’t teach or support creationism.

Michael Behe, probably the most well known creationist of all is a professor at Lehigh University. Check out the statement made by the science department

http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm

So no, you are incorrect in assuming those institutions do not support the idea of human-related climate change.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Small? There is no consensus.
[/quote]

Right even though all those institutions across the world have endorsed the view.

I personally think that a cycle could be the cause of changing climate , I also think people have to get their head out of their ass . We have one Earth , fuck it up and that is it. The problem I have with the issue is the political .It should be scientific.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So what about May 2011? Is that too old too?

A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, ?The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,? collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents ? representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey?s specific standards ? work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.

97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that ?human-induced greenhouse warming? is now occurring.? Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
?There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50?50 chance that temperatures will rise? 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50?100 years.

?When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8?10), 44% moderate danger (4?7), and 13% little danger.?

The researchers conclude that the findings ?provide little support for criticisms that scientists? views on global warming are based on workplace pressures or desires to further their own careers or expand their public influence. We found disagreement over the future effects of climate change, but not over the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, it is possible that the growing public perception of scientific disagreement over the existence of anthropocentric warming, which was stimulated by press accounts of ?Climategate? [the 2009 hacked emails controversy] is actually a misperception of the normal range of disagreements that may persist within a broad scientific consensus.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/[/quote]
.[/quote]

What logic ?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
So we are dumping basic shit into it to neutralize acidic effects?
[/quote]

There’s ideas floating around like doing something like that to oceans. Or putting millions of tiny mirrors in space to deflect solar radiation and putting aerosols into the atmosphere that reflect sun rays back into space but so little is known about what the effects of doing these things would do and it would be a huge feat too.

Simply put, it’s too expensive and wildly unpredictable.[/quote]

It would be horrifically stupid to try. [/quote]

X200000

What if global warming is all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

No, it’s really not. For instance there are several creationists who work at prominent institutions but the school itself doesn’t teach or support creationism.

Michael Behe, probably the most well known creationist of all is a professor at Lehigh University. Check out the statement made by the science department

http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm

[/quote]

Why? I’m not interested in Professor Michael Behe’s views on creationism and they have nought to do with the subject of this thread.

I didn’t assume that. I said that institutions comprise their members. And that members of the aforementioned institutions conducted the studies and research in the OP. I concede that the majority of scientists in the relevant fields believe that anthropogenic ‘climate change(formerly known as global warming)’ occurs. That does not mean there is consensus on the matter.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
So we are dumping basic shit into it to neutralize acidic effects?
[/quote]

There’s ideas floating around like doing something like that to oceans. Or putting millions of tiny mirrors in space to deflect solar radiation and putting aerosols into the atmosphere that reflect sun rays back into space but so little is known about what the effects of doing these things would do and it would be a huge feat too.

Simply put, it’s too expensive and wildly unpredictable.[/quote]

It would be horrifically stupid to try. [/quote]

X200000
[/quote]
so, we do all agree, right?

[quote]Makavali wrote:
What if global warming is all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[/quote]
nice.