"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

dense

Grayson wrote: »

There are tens of thousands of climate scientists who are studying this and something like 98% are in agreement with the three core findings of the IEEE.

Link?

To the exact number of climate scientists in the world, how many of them were surveyed, and by what organisation, what the response rate was, and where was this analysis published?

Thanks.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

That NASA says that the average global temperature of 288k hasn't increased since 1972 and hasn't been affected by adding an extra 75ppm of
atmospheric CO2?

2017
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

1972
https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Faint-young-sun-paradox/Segan-Mullen-1972.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwinhsef0Z3eAhWHCsAKHXUGBWkQFjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2vaKm-vbZYqQqBYCVjkU0T

Unless they're going to start saying NASA is now talking pure shîte, I'd say they agree with the above.

You agree with the above too, don't you?


http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/CO2MAUNA.XLS&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjs7sSGz53eAhWGWsAKHS1FCB8QFjAEegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3kA3W8N3aKMXC-unazCDaD

Before I bother looking at your silly links. Are you saying that NASA agree with your view on global warming?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Link?

To the exact number of climate scientists in the world, how many of them were surveyed, and by what organisation, what the response rate was, and where was this analysis published?

Thanks.

blah blah blah. Stupid requests for an impossible burden of proof that you can nit pick no matter what the response. Typical of someone trying to obfuscate, not find an answer.

You claim there is no consensus, if that's true, you should be able to easily find dozens of statements from reputable scientific institutions or university departments who currently dispute the consensus

Link to a single one please.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

blah blah blah. Stupid requests for an impossible burden of proof that you can nit pick no matter what the response. Typical of someone trying to obfuscate, not find an answer.

You claim there is no consensus, if that's true, you should be able to easily find dozens of statements from reputable scientific institutions or university departments who currently dispute the consensus

Link to a single one please.

There is nothing stupid about simply asking someone who's making up figures to explain where their figures are coming from, or indeed, why they are making them up.

Why would you accept their nonsense?

I asked you for figures to back up your recent claims and I'm still waiting.

It doesn't really matter to me if all academies of science are singing from the one hymn book.

The thing to remember is, like myself, the majority of governments are rejecting their junk science to.


The latest UNIPCC propaganda report has had its 15 minutes of fame and quite correctly has been quickly forgotten about.

Official lip service was paid to it, nothing more, a fact you will acknowledge yourself amidst your cries for global collective action to avert catastrophe, which are falling on deaf ears.

Stupid and fake claims are what you and the likes of George Lee use to promote fake global warming and fake research that attempted to show a scientific consensus.

You lie to people to try to fool them.
You can't deal with simple facts, so you rely on fiction.

We've just had another fake claim made, this time not about a 97%, but a 98% consensus

Made up, unverifiable numbers, the ingredients of "climate science".

University "climate research" funding depends on accepting, creating and perpetuating stupid fake claims in order to sustain their existence.

Do you honestly expect academia to be biting the hand that is feeding it?

They won't and they'll go along with whatever fake research the likes of Cook et al publish because it suits them.



Like you and the rest of the warmists here, they silently endorse fakery because it suits their self serving agenda.

You've been making the most ridiculous claims and faux pas here for the last few months and not one warmist has had the integrity to permit them to admit to it.

xckjoo

So not a single person has been able to provide a single link to a semi- reputable university of research body that refutes mans effect on climate change? After 50 pages that's looking pretty definitive.

Dohnjoe

xckjoo wrote: »

So not a single person has been able to provide a single link to a semi- reputable university of research body that refutes mans effect on climate change? After 50 pages that's looking pretty definitive.

Correct. Unfortunately there is nothing to stop people (or one individual) dragging a thread on for another 50 pages with never-ending circular denialism. To them it's purely an exercise in stamina and dogmatic beliefs.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

There is nothing stupid about simply asking someone who's making up figures to explain where their figures are coming from, or indeed, why they are making them up.

Why would you accept their nonsense?

I asked you for figures to back up your recent claims and I'm still waiting.

It doesn't really matter to me if all academies of science are singing from the one hymn book.

The thing to remember is, like myself, the majority of governments are rejecting their junk science to.


The latest UNIPCC propaganda report has had its 15 minutes of fame and quite correctly has been quickly forgotten about.

Official lip service was paid to it, nothing more, a fact you will acknowledge yourself amidst your cries for global collective action to avert catastrophe, which are falling on deaf ears.

Stupid and fake claims are what you and the likes of George Lee use to promote fake global warming and fake research that attempted to show a scientific consensus.

You lie to people to try to fool them.
You can't deal with simple facts, so you rely on fiction.

We've just had another fake claim made, this time not about a 97%, but a 98% consensus

Made up, unverifiable numbers, the ingredients of "climate science".

University "climate research" funding depends on accepting, creating and perpetuating stupid fake claims in order to sustain their existence.

Do you honestly expect academia to be biting the hand that is feeding it?

They won't and they'll go along with whatever fake research the likes of Cook et al publish because it suits them.



Like you and the rest of the warmists here, they silently endorse fakery because it suits their self serving agenda.

You've been making the most ridiculous claims and faux pas here for the last few months and not one warmist has had the integrity to permit them to admit to it.

Lol.

So you're admitting that there is a consensus amongst professional scientists, but you're just declaring that they're all lying about it to get funding.

You're a joke dense.

Go back to your 'notrickszone' nonsense where they actually do fake data and falsify graphs.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Correct. Unfortunately there is nothing to stop people (or one individual) dragging a thread on for another 50 pages with never-ending circular denialism. To them it's purely an exercise in stamina and dogmatic beliefs.

+1

There will never be a consensus reached, round we go on the spin cycle.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

+1

There will never be a consensus reached, round we go on the spin cycle.

There is a consensus amongst experts who know what they're talking about, consensus is not the same as unanimous agreement.

In terms of public opinion, depending on which country you're in, it varies depending on the education levels in the country and the standards of discourse in their politics and media. In the EU 92% of adults accept climate change and consider it to be a serious problem (based on ESS survey in 2017)

But this is an internet discussion forum, and sometimes the nuttier opinions get amplified especially amongst those who consume the nuttier media outlets based in the US and the UK who are opposing action on climate change for ideological reasons or because it's in their own financial interest to do so.

mcmoustache

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Correct. Unfortunately there is nothing to stop people (or one individual) dragging a thread on for another 50 pages with never-ending circular denialism. To them it's purely an exercise in stamina and dogmatic beliefs.

You've just summed up irrational denialism in general.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a consensus amongst experts who know what they're talking about, consensus is not the same as unanimous agreement.

In terms of public opinion, depending on which country you're in, it varies depending on the education levels in the country and the standards of discourse in their politics and media. In the EU 92% of adults accept climate change and consider it to be a serious problem (based on ESS survey in 2017)

But this is an internet discussion forum, and sometimes the nuttier opinions get amplified especially amongst those who consume the nuttier media outlets based in the US and the UK who are opposing action on climate change for ideological reasons or because it's in their own financial interest to do so.

You misinterpret my words, which relate specifically to this thread and the redundant arguments of a wind-up merchant.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Lol.

So you're admitting that there is a consensus amongst professional scientists, but you're just declaring that they're all lying about it to get funding.

Most definitely, because a fake consensus was arrived at, by arbitrarily giving a minority of climate researchers an opportunity to engage in the "Consensus Project".

The views of the majority of climate scientists referred to in the study were deliberately not sought, which was not surprising given that the majority of climate research analysed FAILED to endorse the AGW theory.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/02402

Akrasia wrote: »

Go back to your 'notrickszone' nonsense where they actually do fake data and falsify graphs.

Talking about NOAA and it's famous missing data again?


The data that you say they can verify once they make it up?



Or the CRU at UEA and the missing data they had to make up?

Akrasia wrote: »

You're a joke dense.

The joke is on you Akrasia.

This is a tough time for climate science. The Guardian's new revelations about the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia might help to explain the university's utter failure to confront its critics.



They could also explain why the head of the unit, Phil Jones, blocked freedom of information requests and proposed that material subject to those requests be deleted.

He has been spared a criminal investigation only because the time limit for prosecutions has expired.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails

dense

It will be interesting to see what sort of character assassination Akrasia comes up with for these people:




https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/

xckjoo

You ask for research and get a 2010 op-ed piece about a near 30 year old paper that (if read fully) does nothing to refute the posters claims that man-made climate change is a hoax. Couple that with repeating claims based on complete lack of understanding of scientific methodology (that have already been explained ad nauseam) and a few personal digs to try and drag things off point again. Is there a better summation of this thread?

WesternZulu

dense wrote: »

That NASA says that the average global temperature of 288k hasn't increased since 1972 and hasn't been affected by adding an extra 75ppm of
atmospheric CO2?

2017
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

1972
https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Faint-young-sun-paradox/Segan-Mullen-1972.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwinhsef0Z3eAhWHCsAKHXUGBWkQFjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2vaKm-vbZYqQqBYCVjkU0T

Unless they're going to start saying NASA is now talking pure shîte, I'd say they agree with the above.

You agree with the above too, don't you?


http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/CO2MAUNA.XLS&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjs7sSGz53eAhWGWsAKHS1FCB8QFjAEegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3kA3W8N3aKMXC-unazCDaD

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

WesternZulu wrote: »

Ah you're just cherry picking now. The fact that there were hot years in the past is not a validation against global climate change.

The global average temp is increasing. There are years that are hotter than more recent times but the trend line is undoubtedly rising:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1918-2018?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2018



No one wants to get rid of the greenhouse effect. You have to be trolling.

xckjoo

WesternZulu wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

He hasn't forgotten. This is standard operating procedure. Don't bother trying to engage.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Most definitely, because a fake consensus was arrived at, by arbitrarily giving a minority of climate researchers an opportunity to engage in the "Consensus Project".

The views of the majority of climate scientists referred to in the study were deliberately not sought, which was not surprising given that the majority of climate research analysed FAILED to endorse the AGW theory.

WTF are you going on about now.

Anyway, even if what you said is true, and it isn't. You've just contradicted your previous statement that the scientists and the universities have to endorse AGW or else they won't get any funding

Which is it Dense? You only just said you can't find a single university or scientific institute who supports your view because they're all corrupt and lying about the data, and right now, you're saying that the majority of their published research doesn't actually support the global warming consensus. You can't have it both ways.

mcmoustache

WesternZulu wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

This is common in denialism threads. Debunked nonsense gets reposted when enough time has passed. If a denier was arguing in good faith, they wouldn't do that. If they were disingenuously trying to deceive, then that's exactly what they would do. It's not confined to climate change - you'll also see it in vaccine threads.

Akrasia

WesternZulu wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

Even worse than that, Dense is lying when dense says that NASA said global average temperature was 288k in 1972. If you look at the link, the only mention of 288k is here

.. this is far less than the observed mean surface temperature, T,, of Earth, 286? to 288 K.

In other words, back in 1972 when this paper was written, the global average temperature was estimated as 287k with a margin of error +-1k
Dense spent another night googling for anything dense could find to support dense's preexisting argument, and again, Dense failed miserably.

One can only imagine how many papers Dense found that measured the earth's temperature at 287k that Dense was forced to ignore before Dense got to the one reference of 288k dense so desperately wanted

dense

WesternZulu wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

You don't appear to understand that you have linked to a chart of temperature anomalies, nor do you appear to able to explain what they signify for you.



I on the other hand have demonstrated that according to NASA, the global average temperature last year was the same as it was in 1972.


Even I agree with Akrasia when they recommend adopting a sceptical approach to the validity of extrapolating baselines from extremely sparse global 19th century and earlier temperature data due to well documented reliability issues.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Even worse than that, Dense is lying when dense says that NASA said global average temperature was 288k in 1972. If you look at the link, the only mention of 288k is here


In other words, back in 1972 when this paper was written, the global average temperature was estimated as 287k with a margin of error +-1k
Dense spent another night googling for anything dense could find to support dense's preexisting argument, and again, Dense failed miserably.

One can only imagine how many papers Dense found that measured the earth's temperature at 287k that Dense was forced to ignore before Dense got to the one reference of 288k dense so desperately wanted

Akrasia, stop, you're being pathetic.

The paper said 286 - 288k.
Thats a 3k variable.

Your alleged error margin is +-1k.
Meaning that the average temperature could be 289k.

2017's global average temperature was lower, 288k.

You've already claimed that the average gobal temperature in 1981 was "approximately" 288k, are you trying to wash your hands of that now?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108382510&postcount=712


If so, why?


Just because you're pisśed off that the average global temperature in 2017 was 288k?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Akrasia, stop, you're being pathetic.

The paper said 286 - 288k.
Thats a 3k variable.

Your alleged error margin is +-1k.
Meaning that the average temperature could be 289k.

2017's global average temperature was lower, 288k.

You've already claimed that the average gobal temperature in 1981 was "approximately" 288k, are you trying to wash your hands of that now?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108382510&postcount=712


If so, why?


Just because you're pisśed off that the average global temperature in 2017 was 288k?

dense

I meant to pull Akrasia up on another one of their fake claims, namely that the BEST temperature data project had been put together by someone who was initially a sceptic, but whose research allegedly led them to being an alarmist.


Well if Akrasia knew anything about Richard Muller they'd know that Muller was a fan of Al Gore, the UNIPCC and AGW theory back in 2008, years before being "converted" by their Berkeley Earth project.

What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures. If [Al Gore] reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion — which he does, but he’s very effective at it — then let him fly any plane he wants.

https://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/


Guess Akrasia doesn't know much about anything.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Which is it Dense? You only just said you can't find a single university or scientific institute who supports your view because they're all corrupt and lying about the data, and right now, you're saying that the majority of their published research doesn't actually support the global warming consensus. You can't have it both ways.

Post up UCD's official "AGW Climate Change Position Statement" and we'll go through it.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

I meant to pull Akrasia up on another one of their fake claims, namely that the BEST temperature data project had been put together by someone who was initially a sceptic, but whose research allegedly led them to being an alarmist.


Well if Akrasia knew anything about Richard Muller they'd know that Muller was a fan of Al Gore, the UNIPCC and AGW theory back in 2008, years before being "converted" by their Berkeley Earth project.




https://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/


Guess Akrasia doesn't know much about anything.

Here's what Muller himself had to say in 2012,

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

He was a scientist who believed in global warming, then read some papers which made him doubt the consensus, so he did what a good scientist does, he investigated it and when the results came back, he went with the conclusions supported by the data.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Post up UCD's official "AGW Climate Change Position Statement" and we'll go through it.

You mean this?

Climate

Human activities, such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation have now been linked unequivocally to the warming of our planet. Temperature increases in certain regions of the globe will likely result in ice sheet reduction, increased flooding and more frequent extreme weather events.
http://www.ucd.ie/earth/research/climate/

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

You mean this?

Yes, the acknowledgement from the Earth Scientists that the AGW does theory exist alongside of the admission that the scientific understanding of climate science is incomplete:

Climate scientists at UCD Earth Institute are combining data and models to help understand how our climate is changing, and how the planet’s feedback systems will react to those changes in the future.

Bit non committal isn't it?



UCD climate scientists could do with some more help in order to understand how our climate is changing.


Strange position to admit to being in.

It contradicts those who profess to know how our climate is changing and how the earth's feedback systems will react in the future.



Having it both ways comes to mind.



Still, its probably better than pretending the science is settled.

Is there no official statement from UCD itself on whether it endorses the AGW theory?

Akrasia

Is that the best you can do?

Seriously?

They say the human link is unequivocal through fossil fuel use and deforestation.

i'd do the Picard facepalm again but I think you're just trolling now

BTW, Nobody claims to know for certain how the earth will react to climate change.

What we have are scenarios for what we think is likely to happen based on the evidence we have. Some scenarios are more likely than others, and some are more damaging than others. Nobody says all the science is settled. But the question over whether global warming is happening and whether humans are responsible definitely is answered, unequivocally. That question settled.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

They say the human link is unequivocal through fossil fuel use and deforestation.

They being from the "Earth Sciences" department.


I'm sure the humanities department actively acknowledges the god theory etc.



Does the university itself not publish an official climate change position statement that we can evaluate?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Here's what Muller himself had to say in 2012,


He was a scientist who believed in global warming, then read some papers which made him doubt the consensus, so he did what a good scientist does, he investigated it and when the results came back, he went with the conclusions supported by the data.

He just had a bit of a wobble over the junk science until he got his funding to do some junk science.

It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he told The Huffington Post’s Tom Zeller Jr. in a recent email exchange.



“Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’



But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_1094966

Dr Brown

I can't believe people still believe in the climate change scam after the top climate scientists who were peddling the scam were caught lying a few years ago.

If man made climate change was real then so called "scientists" wouldn't need to lie about it.

Also over the decades climate change scientists have claimed that doomsday is just around the corner yet it never happens.

If we believed what they said 20 years ago we should all be under water by now.



https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

Dohnjoe

Dr Brown wrote: »

I can't believe people still believe in the climate change scam

It's not a "few" scientists, nor is it a "scam". There is a broad scientific consensus.

xckjoo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not a "few" scientists, nor is it a "scam". There is a broad scientific consensus.

97% consensus!

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

They being from the "Earth Sciences" department.

Yeah, the experts

I'm sure the humanities department actively acknowledges the god theory etc.

What's 'the god theory'

Does the university itself not publish an official climate change position statement that we can evaluate?

The Science department represents the university in matters of science and scientific research.

WesternZulu

Dr Brown wrote: »

I can't believe people still believe in the climate change scam after the top climate scientists who were peddling the scam were caught lying a few years ago.

If man made climate change was real then so called "scientists" wouldn't need to lie about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

I can't believe people still believe in the whole climategate conspiracy.

Climategate was a mishmash of snippets of e-mails that had been taken out of context.
EIGHT different thorough investigations later proved that no misconduct had occurred.

Akrasia

Dr Brown wrote: »

I can't believe people still believe in the climate change scam after the top climate scientists who were peddling the scam were caught lying a few years ago.

If man made climate change was real then so called "scientists" wouldn't need to lie about it.

Also over the decades climate change scientists have claimed that doomsday is just around the corner yet it never happens.

If we believed what they said 20 years ago we should all be under water by now.



https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

2009 called, they want their climate change denial talking points back.

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

And the projections for climate change from 20 years ago are in the IPCC reports, none of them say we would all be under water by now

The 2nd assessment report was released in 1995
Here is just a sample of what they said about potential sea level rises back then

A number of studies have evaluated sensitivity to a 1-m sea-level
rise. This increase is at the top of the range of IPCC Working Group
I estimates for 2100; it should be noted, however, that sea level is
actually projected to continue to rise beyond 2100.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/2nd-assessment-en.pdf

In other words, they projected a 1 metre sea level rise by 2100 as possible under a business as usual scenario, but on the high end of likely outcomes.
In the latest AR5 report, the projections are basically still the same.

For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m with a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to 16 mm yr–1

These projections are robust with the assumption that ice shelves don't undergo any major instability over the next 80 years. (There is a risk that this might happen, but we cant quantify that risk sufficiently, so the IPCC left it out of their last report. This might change by AR6 in 2022)

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The Science department represents the university in matters of science and scientific research.

And it's the tail on the dog.


What you're trying to avoid saying is that you cant find the University's official published policy position which endorses the AGW theory.

xckjoo

I don't see their stance on the existence of gravity or the flatness of the Earth either. "UCD"? More like "Illuminati Mouth Piece" if you ask me

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

And it's the tail on the dog.


What you're trying to avoid saying is that you cant find the University's official published policy position which endorses the AGW theory.

I haven't looked tbh, because I asked you to find me a single university science department or scientific institute that agrees with your views on climate change. If you think UCD support your view, then post up your evidence for this.

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not a "few" scientists, nor is it a "scam". There is a broad scientific consensus.

This previous post of yours:


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107696313&postcount=286



demonstrated your inability to comprehend the statistics you had been fed, so I'm unsure why you're determined to keep advertising your difficulties?


I was going to ask you for a link to back up your claim, but it's ok, you wouldn't really understand what you're proferring.



And anyway, Akrasia says it silly to ask a warmist to explain things they've made up.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108438344&postcount=754

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

This previous post of yours:


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107696313&postcount=286



demonstrated your inability to comprehend the statistics you had been fed, so I'm unsure why you're determined to keep advertising your difficulties?

There was absolutely nothing wrong with that post.

I was going to ask you for a link to back up your claim, but it's ok, you wouldn't really understand what you're proferring.



And anyway, Akrasia says it silly to ask a warmist to explain things they've made up.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108438344&postcount=754

Is this your new tactic Dense, to ignore posts when they're first posted, and can be read in their full context, and then refer back to them later in isolation, out of context, blatantly misrepresenting their meaning when the conversation has moved and people won't be bothered looking up what they're referring to?

You wanted a link to the exact number of scientists in the world. That is not a request for information. It's a transparent attempt to move the burden of proof. You were asked for a single piece of evidence to support your claim, and retaliate by demanding something that not only doesn't exist, but cannot possibly exist.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

I haven't looked tbh, because I asked you to find me a single university science department or scientific institute that agrees with your views on climate change. If you think UCD support your view, then post up your evidence for this.

Why???
I don't claim that ANY university agrees with me.

I can say they ALL disagree with me, if that makes you feel better this morning?



But if you think the official UCD climate change position is one which endorses the AGW theory and shares your hysterical climate alarmism, how about you go find it and post it up here?

3DataModem

Is man impacting the climate?
Yes.

Will that impact have a major impact on sea levels, affecting hundreds of millions of people worldwide?
Yes.

Will that impact have a major impact on other life on the planet?
Yes, however while a lot of species will become extinct, studies have shown that warmer temperatures actually encourage biodiversity. We will most likely see new ecosystems and new species. Possibly more diversity than exists currently.

Is climate change 'bad' for the planet?
No. The planet's biosphere has been through a lot more than humanity could throw at it, and thrived.

Why do people not like climate change?
Because it materially affects human civilisation as we currently know it. People who say 'save the planet' are really saying 'save our coastal cities'.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

There was absolutely nothing wrong with that post.


Is this your new tactic Dense, to ignore posts when they're first posted, and can be read in their full context, and then refer back to them later in isolation, out of context, blatantly misrepresenting their meaning when the conversation has moved and people won't be bothered looking up what they're referring to?

You wanted a link to the exact number of scientists in the world. That is not a request for information. It's a transparent attempt to move the burden of proof. You were asked for a single piece of evidence to support your claim, and retaliate by demanding something that not only doesn't exist, but cannot possibly exist.

No, I asked for the exact number of scientists thwy were talkimg about from which a 98% had been garnered.


You'll find that I've previously quoted the UN work survey which states that there is approximately 8 million scientists in the world.


No one seems to know how many "climate scientists" there are, much less their views on "climate change".


But by all means, continue firing out stupid percentages and saying it's silly to question fake claims if it makes the global warming religion feel less fake.

Dohnjoe

3DataModem wrote: »

People who say 'save the planet' are really saying 'save our coastal cities'.

Not just our coastal cities

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Why???
I don't claim that ANY university agrees with me.

I can say they ALL disagree with me, if that makes you feel better this morning?

You say there is no consensus. If every reputable scientific organisation in the world agrees with each other on any topic, that is a pretty comprehensive scientific consensus.

But if you think the official UCD climate change position is one which endorses the AGW theory and shares your hysterical climate alarmism, how about you go find it and post it up here?

I already have. You just refuse to accept it. I wonder what other areas of your life are you completely blind to facts and evidence and constantly demand to be shown things that have already been demonstrated?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

No, I asked for the exact number of scientists thwy were talkimg about from which a 98% had been garnered.

This is what you said "To the exact number of climate scientists in the world, how many of them were surveyed"

Apart from the garbled syntax, you appear to be asking for the exact number of climate scientists in the world, to which there is no answer because there are grey areas between people who work on the fringes of the field, people doing PHDs or masters who might not yet be fully qualified but are still capable of publishing, people who are retired but still teach occasionally or give lectures, or review papers sometimes etc etc. How many climate scientists are there? How many twigs are there on a tree? (that's actually a stick, not a twig, no wait, it's snapped in half, it's two twigs)

You'll find that I've previously quoted the UN work survey which states that there is approximately 8 million scientists in the world.


No one seems to know how many "climate scientists" there are, much less their views on "climate change".


But by all means, continue firing out stupid percentages and saying it's silly to question fake claims if it makes the global warming religion feel less fake.

You're so full of sh1t dense. You don't have to know exactly how many 'climate scientists there are' if you're sampling. If there are a colony of penguins in antarctica and you want to know what percentage of them have a certain gene, you don't have to take blood samples from every single penguin, or count every single penguin. You just need to get a representative sample and then test them, and the percentage of that gene in the sample is likely to be representative of that population.

You can get a good idea of the percentage of opinion by taking a representative sample of a given population and asking them. It's how polling works. Is the answer 100% accurate? No, but if you get a finding of 97% agreeing on something, it's a pretty safe bet that there is a very stong general consensus on that subject amongst that group of people. (in this case, actively publishing researchers in fields specifically relevant to climate science)


In order to get a percentage of anything, you need to know what you're measuring. All of the studies that talk about the consensus explain their methodology clearly and explain what the percentages relate to. It's either respondents to a survey (using a sample of scientists, not every single scientist as you seem to demand) or it's analysis of the published literature (not all the literature, just the papers that meet certain minimum criteria for inclusion in the sample)

Anyway. You've already admitted that 100% of all reputable scientific bodies in the world think you're wrong. So whatever we can say about the climate change consensus. Everyone who knows anything about this topic knows you're full of sh1t.

Akrasia

3DataModem wrote: »

Will that impact have a major impact on other life on the planet?
Yes, however while a lot of species will become extinct, studies have shown that warmer temperatures actually encourage biodiversity. We will most likely see new ecosystems and new species. Possibly more diversity than exists currently.

Where are these papers?

We have seen evidence of catastrophic collapses in invertebrate populations in some of our forests due in large part to temperature and rainfall changes. If the invertebrates can't survive, the food web gets shattered and we lose countless species.

There is a very real risk that rainforest eco systems could go into terminal decline and this is where the vast majority of terrestrial species are found. If the forests go, so do the species.

In the ocean, the vast majority of species live on or near coral reefs. We have already lost 50% of the great barrier reef since only 2016. There are risks that we could lose 90% of global coral reefs by 2050. Could these migrate to cooler water? Perhaps, but it will take a long time and many species will be lost.

Over millions of years the planet will adapt and new forms of life will emerge to take advantage of the new state the planet is in, but our mark on the world will be far from insignificant. We are on path to be a geological disaster akin to the event that wiped out the dinosaurs

Is climate change 'bad' for the planet?

No. The planet's biosphere has been through a lot more than humanity could throw at it, and thrived.

Why do people not like climate change?
Because it materially affects human civilisation as we currently know it. People who say 'save the planet' are really saying 'save our coastal cities'.

and our food supply, and the places that are likely to become deserts uninhabitable due to oppressive heat. The fact that the planet can recover millions of years after we're extinct is not a good reason to not destroy what we have now

Dr Brown

There is far more CO2 in the sea than from any human activity.

xckjoo

Dr Brown wrote: »

There is far more CO2 in the sea than from any human activity.

Why did you post a link to half a video? Did the content creator lose interest half way through his waffle? Didn't even let him finish his sentence