• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Networks of 7,000 universities declare climate emergency

longview said:
There is a fundamental difference in how that arrive at their ECS estimates, and therein lies the problem.
The picture for Mankind's future is just fine, and I agree with most of the statement,
"that the climate is warming, and that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is the leading cause."
You added the part about the greenhouse gas emissions from Human activity is the leading cause.
The actual consensus statements only mention Human activity as the source of the warming, not specifying greenhouse gasses.
Nasa's version,
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Notice no mention of greenhouse gasses.
Click to expand...

All from your link --->

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
...
And they go on to cite 18 scientific agencies, who agree with the following --->

"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)2

I'd call that Concensus!!!
 
Media_Truth said:
All from your link --->

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
...
And they go on to cite 18 scientific agencies, who agree with the following --->

"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)2

I'd call that Concensus!!!
Click to expand...

". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. . . . "


Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. . . . "


Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003
Click to expand...

Crichton Thriller State of Fear | Union of Concerned Scientists

To clear up these misconceptions, we have selected some representative cases to discuss; the list below, however, is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors in Crichton's book.

How was Michael Crichton able to take the same data that climate scientists use and come to the conclusion that global warming isn't a real threat?
State of Fear uses graphs that don't show a warming trend. How can specific locations show cooling if global warming is happening?
What is the "urban heat island effect" and is it contributing to warming?
Crichton argues that C02 in the atmosphere is not closely correlated with warming trends. So why is C02 blamed as a greenhouse gas?
Several times Crichton notes that glaciers are expanding not retreating. Is this accurate or only part of the story?
Michael Crichton says we can't predict the future. Does this preclude our taking steps to reduce heat trapping gas emissions?
Why do we have to act now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?

Read more --->
Crichton Thriller State of Fear | Union of Concerned Scientists
 
Media_Truth said:
Crichton Thriller State of Fear | Union of Concerned Scientists

To clear up these misconceptions, we have selected some representative cases to discuss; the list below, however, is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors in Crichton's book.

How was Michael Crichton able to take the same data that climate scientists use and come to the conclusion that global warming isn't a real threat?
State of Fear uses graphs that don't show a warming trend. How can specific locations show cooling if global warming is happening?
What is the "urban heat island effect" and is it contributing to warming?
Crichton argues that C02 in the atmosphere is not closely correlated with warming trends. So why is C02 blamed as a greenhouse gas?
Several times Crichton notes that glaciers are expanding not retreating. Is this accurate or only part of the story?
Michael Crichton says we can't predict the future. Does this preclude our taking steps to reduce heat trapping gas emissions?
Why do we have to act now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?

Read more --->
Crichton Thriller State of Fear | Union of Concerned Scientists
Click to expand...

Well of course those who extol consensus will attack one who criticizes it. The difference between us is that I don't mind differences of opinion.
 
Jack Hays said:
Well of course those who extol consensus will attack one who criticizes it. The difference between us is that I don't mind differences of opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes, you've shown the flexiblility of your opinion.

It's cooling, despite the fact that the last 4 years have been the warmest on record.:roll: And now it looks like 2019 will be the 2nd warmest year ever, warmer than both 2017 and 2018. But it's still cooling :roll:
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm sure you have seen long ago why I started calling the warmers, "deniers of science."

I would say there is a huge difference between WUWT and Skeptical Science. WUWH almost always have very good source links. Skeptical Science seldom does.
Click to expand...

From the point of view of the CAGW Proponents, WUWT is just a propaganda site.

It helps them to understand what Skeptical Science is to folks residing in the real world.
 
Media_Truth said:
All from your link --->

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
...
And they go on to cite 18 scientific agencies, who agree with the following --->

"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)2

I'd call that Concensus!!!
Click to expand...
There you go again, adding in things that are not part of the consensus statement!
The statement is simple and straight forward,
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
and does not mention greenhouse gasses.
Let's look at the most biased consensus paper out the Cook 2013
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
Strange, they still did not include greenhouse gasses in their statement!
Perhaps WiKi can help?
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
"Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities."
Still no mention of greenhouse gasses!
NASA, John Cook, Wikipedia, all using the broader term of human caused, or Human activity, to describe the consensus.
 
If the sun went out tomorrow, some people would still be claiming it's light outside even though they've been in the dark for a week.
 
longview said:
There you go again, adding in things that are not part of the consensus statement!
The statement is simple and straight forward,
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
and does not mention greenhouse gasses.
Let's look at the most biased consensus paper out the Cook 2013
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
Strange, they still did not include greenhouse gasses in their statement!
Perhaps WiKi can help?
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
"Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities."
Still no mention of greenhouse gasses!
NASA, John Cook, Wikipedia, all using the broader term of human caused, or Human activity, to describe the consensus.
Click to expand...

What don't you understand about "human activities"? Do you think it's humans farting that is adding the largest percentages of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere?
 
Media_Truth said:
What don't you understand about "human activities"? Do you think it's humans farting that is adding the largest percentages of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere?
Click to expand...
Human activity, includes many more aspects than simple greenhouse gas emissions.
High on the list is land use, cutting down forests for farming, strip mining, ect.
 
longview said:
Human activity, includes many more aspects than simple greenhouse gas emissions.
High on the list is land use, cutting down forests for farming, strip mining, ect.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! No doubt that deforestation does add to Climate Change. I was remiss in not mentioning this...

That said, the world emits so much CO2 (and to a lesser extent Methane) that we cannot possibly sequester it with forests.

Are trees' ability to sequester carbon a sustainability myth? - Archpaper.com

For example, a study of a Vancouver neighborhood found that its trees sequestered about 1.7 percent as much carbon as human activities produced, while in Mexico City the figure was 1.4 percent. The results were worse in Singapore. Overall, the authors write, “The impact of urban vegetation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions directly through carbon sequestration is very limited or null.”

I agree, however, that we should not be slashing and burning forests; and that we should "hug our trees".
 
Media_Truth said:
Absolutely! No doubt that deforestation does add to Climate Change. I was remiss in not mentioning this...

That said, the world emits so much CO2 (and to a lesser extent Methane) that we cannot possibly sequester it with forests.

Are trees' ability to sequester carbon a sustainability myth? - Archpaper.com

For example, a study of a Vancouver neighborhood found that its trees sequestered about 1.7 percent as much carbon as human activities produced, while in Mexico City the figure was 1.4 percent. The results were worse in Singapore. Overall, the authors write, “The impact of urban vegetation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions directly through carbon sequestration is very limited or null.”

I agree, however, that we should not be slashing and burning forests; and that we should "hug our trees".
Click to expand...

Deflecting from the point that the consensus statements, are about warming from all Human activity, not just CO2!
 
longview said:
Deflecting from the point that the consensus statements, are about warming from all Human activity, not just CO2!
Click to expand...

The Hadley Center discusses this...

Causes of Climate Change

Human Causes of Climate Change

"It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing due to man-made greenhouse gases. We are already committed to future substantial change over the next 30 years and change is likely to accelerate over the rest of the 21st century."

The Met Office, Hadley Centre, UK

"The Hadley Centre holds an unique position in the world of climate science. No other single body has a comparable breadth of climate change science and modelling, or has made the same contribution to global climate science and current knowledge."

Independent Review 2007

"There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation."

The Royal Society 2010

The Industrial Revolution in the 19th century saw the large-scale use of fossil fuels for industrial activities. Fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas supply most of the energy needed to run vehicles, generate electricity for industries and households. The energy sector is responsible for about ¾ of the carbon dioxide emissions, 1/5 of the methane emissions and a large quantity of nitrous oxide.

Carbon dioxide is undoubtedly, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Changes in land use pattern, deforestation, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities have all led to a rise in the emission of carbon dioxide. Methane is another important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It is released from animals such as dairy cows, goats, pigs, buffaloes, camels, horses and sheep Methane is also emitted during the process of oil drilling, coal mining, leaking gas pipelines, landfills and waste dumps.
 
Media_Truth said:
The Hadley Center discusses this...

Causes of Climate Change

Human Causes of Climate Change

"It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing due to man-made greenhouse gases. We are already committed to future substantial change over the next 30 years and change is likely to accelerate over the rest of the 21st century."

The Met Office, Hadley Centre, UK

"The Hadley Centre holds an unique position in the world of climate science. No other single body has a comparable breadth of climate change science and modelling, or has made the same contribution to global climate science and current knowledge."

Independent Review 2007

"There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation."

The Royal Society 2010

The Industrial Revolution in the 19th century saw the large-scale use of fossil fuels for industrial activities. Fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas supply most of the energy needed to run vehicles, generate electricity for industries and households. The energy sector is responsible for about ¾ of the carbon dioxide emissions, 1/5 of the methane emissions and a large quantity of nitrous oxide.

Carbon dioxide is undoubtedly, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Changes in land use pattern, deforestation, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities have all led to a rise in the emission of carbon dioxide. Methane is another important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It is released from animals such as dairy cows, goats, pigs, buffaloes, camels, horses and sheep Methane is also emitted during the process of oil drilling, coal mining, leaking gas pipelines, landfills and waste dumps.
Click to expand...

If the consensus were more than stated, then why would they not say so?
They limited it to Human activity to fatten up the numbers!
 
longview said:
If the consensus were more than stated, then why would they not say so?
They limited it to Human activity to fatten up the numbers!
Click to expand...

Why don't you write the Royal Society and tell them that their reasoning doesn't stand up to your scrutiny?
 
Media_Truth said:
Why don't you write the Royal Society and tell them that their reasoning doesn't stand up to your scrutiny?
Click to expand...
There reasoning does not even support their own Motto!
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, you've shown the flexiblility of your opinion.

It's cooling, despite the fact that the last 4 years have been the warmest on record.:roll: And now it looks like 2019 will be the 2nd warmest year ever, warmer than both 2017 and 2018. But it's still cooling :roll:
Click to expand...

2016>2017>2018>. . . .
We'll see how 2019 turns out.
I've said from the beginning that the occasional El Nino can pause the cooling, but it cannot stop it.
 
[h=1]London = Barcelona by 2050?[/h]Posted on 17 Jul 19 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 18 Comments
The latest piece of alarmist climate pseudoscience is Understanding climate change from a global analysis of city analogues, published in PLOS ONE by a large team from Thomas Crowther’s lab in Zürich. His name may be familiar, as he was one the authors of what Geoff described as the World’s Worst Scientific Paper, the feeble smear
 
Jack Hays said:
2016>2017>2018>. . . .
We'll see how 2019 turns out.
I've said from the beginning that the occasional El Nino can pause the cooling, but it cannot stop it.
Click to expand...

You and your buddy!

Trump_Pinocchio.jpg
 
Jack Hays said:
Not sure what you're trying to say since I don't support Trump and my statements were true.
Click to expand...

Doesn't bode well for truth of any of your statements --->

July on course to be hottest month ever, say climate scientists | Environment | The Guardian

Record temperatures across much of the world over the past two weeks could make July the hottest month ever measured on Earth, according to climate scientists.

The past fortnight has seen freak heat in the Canadian Arctic, crippling droughts in Chennai and Harare and forest fires that forced thousands of holidaymakers to abandon campsites in southern France and prompted the air force in Indonesia to fly cloud-busting missions in the hope of inducing rain.

If the trends of the first half of this month continue, it will beat the previous record from July 2017 by about 0.025C, according to calculations by Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford, and others.

This follows the warmest-ever June, which was confirmed this week by data from the US space agency Nasa, following Europe’s Copernicus satellite monitoring system

Deniers need to take long-long nap...
 
Media_Truth said:
Doesn't bode well for truth of any of your statements --->

July on course to be hottest month ever, say climate scientists | Environment | The Guardian

Record temperatures across much of the world over the past two weeks could make July the hottest month ever measured on Earth, according to climate scientists.

The past fortnight has seen freak heat in the Canadian Arctic, crippling droughts in Chennai and Harare and forest fires that forced thousands of holidaymakers to abandon campsites in southern France and prompted the air force in Indonesia to fly cloud-busting missions in the hope of inducing rain.

If the trends of the first half of this month continue, it will beat the previous record from July 2017 by about 0.025C, according to calculations by Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford, and others.

This follows the warmest-ever June, which was confirmed this week by data from the US space agency Nasa, following Europe’s Copernicus satellite monitoring system

Deniers need to take long-long nap...
Click to expand...

El Nino may pause, but cannot stop, the cooling.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]London = Barcelona by 2050?[/h]Posted on 17 Jul 19 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 18 Comments
The latest piece of alarmist climate pseudoscience is Understanding climate change from a global analysis of city analogues, published in PLOS ONE by a large team from Thomas Crowther’s lab in Zürich. His name may be familiar, as he was one the authors of what Geoff described as the World’s Worst Scientific Paper, the feeble smear
Click to expand...
That is insane, someone must have added a decimal in their calculations.
This statement is the most profound.
As a general trend, we found that all the cities tend to shift towards the sub-tropics,
with cities from the Northern hemisphere shifting to warmer conditions,
on average ~1000 km south (velocity ~20 km.year-1),
and cities from the tropics shifting to drier conditions.
Click to expand...
Plant hardiness zones have moved, maybe 80 km in the last century (.8 km.year),
to suppose the next 30 years will move at 25 times that rate is beyond belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom