• 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!

What, me worry?

Surface Detail said:
We are talking specifically about potential for catastrophe in the next 50 years resulting from climate change. Stop trying to change the subject. You always do that. Whenever someone points out a mistake in your reasoning, you just shoot off another pile of barely-related and equally dubious claims!
Click to expand...

Funny, the Bray and VonStorch Climate Scientist survey was his link, and when challenged with the actual results, now he is dodging them. I found the support for the accuracy of the models very interesting. There were a number of questions, and most of them pointed to a high accuracy for the models. Typical example --->

Climatologist_Model_Accuracy_Poll_BrayandVonStorch.JPG
 
longview said:
It drops off much faster that that! The 97% is that it has warmed in the last century.
Human activity is involved, is closer to 89%.
I think the questions about catastrophic results in the next 10 and next 50 years, drops to around 50%.
(PDF) The Bray-and-von Storch Surveys on the perceptions of climate scientists, 2015/2016, #5, Report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu

Mean is 3.45 out of 7.

mean is 4.47 out of 7.
As you can see 90% and higher occurs seldom.
Click to expand...

From your link, you can readily see that the vast majority of Climate Scientists expect heat waves to get much worse. We have been seeing the effects of heat waves throughout the world, and Climate Change is in it's infancy.

Climatologist_Heat_Wave_Survey.JPG

As these heatwaves get worse, the population will demand more and more AC. That AC must be powered by renewables, otherwise the problem will exacerbate even more.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Important societies in histories past also once though the sun revolved around the earth.
Click to expand...

Really?

Which societies?

The Catholic Church?

No wonder you’re confused about this- you can’t differentiate scientific societies from religious ones.
 
Media_Truth said:
From your link, you can readily see that the vast majority of Climate Scientists expect heat waves to get much worse. We have been seeing the effects of heat waves throughout the world, and Climate Change is in it's infancy.

View attachment 67263641
Click to expand...

It's so funny watching you tray to make facts out of statistics.

People with normal IQ understand that statistics don't make fact.
 
Media_Truth said:
From your link, you can readily see that the vast majority of Climate Scientists expect heat waves to get much worse. We have been seeing the effects of heat waves throughout the world, and Climate Change is in it's infancy.

View attachment 67263641

As these heatwaves get worse, the population will demand more and more AC. That AC must be powered by renewables, otherwise the problem will exacerbate even more.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of interesting stuff in the survey, but at least that is more realistic than the blanket 97%.
 
Threegoofs said:
So you’re saying there’s consensus, but you just don’t like the number 97?
Click to expand...
There is a consensus, that the global temperatures have warmed over the last century, and that Human activity is likely involved.
Much beyond those two basic ideas, there is not a lot of agreement.
 
longview said:
There is a consensus, that the global temperatures have warmed over the last century, and that Human activity is likely involved.
Much beyond those two basic ideas, there is not a lot of agreement.
Click to expand...

Not "likely involved". This is the 97% consensus - "Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists."

The 97% consensus on global warming
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's so funny watching you tray to make facts out of statistics.

People with normal IQ understand that statistics don't make fact.
Click to expand...

Longview posted this link. If you don't like it, take it up with him. He also cited statistics from this link.
 
Media_Truth said:
Longview posted this link. If you don't like it, take it up with him. He also cited statistics from this link.
Click to expand...

Statistics is a funny science. He's not using it as proof something is happening. He's showing it isn't proof.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Statistics is a funny science. He's not using it as proof something is happening. He's showing it isn't proof.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should look at the link. It's pretty obvious that "something is happening". When a scale of 1-7 shows predominantly 6s and 7s, that is quite telling.
 
longview said:
You cannot even grasp what the consensus is in agreement about.
I am skeptical of the alarmist claims of catastrophic Human cause global warming, because the data does not support
the mid to high end of the range predicted.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and most agree that added CO2 will cause some warming.
The actual warming that the added CO2 will cause is not part of the consensus.
That no empirical evidence exists to validate even the simple forcing warming of CO2,
should be a clue as to our lack of overall knowledge on the subject.
A more sensible debate is what should be done, but the alarmist reject the idea of a red team.
No AGW was simply declared settled science, without any real evidence that added CO2 had much potential to
cause actual climate change.
The basic Forcing equation make sense, but have no way to validate it, brings even it into question.
If we assume that the 2XCO2 forcing equation is in fact correct (without validation), then
doubling the CO2 level would cause about 1.1 C of warming.
Any projected warming that would result from predicted amplified feedbacks are pure speculation,
and have no basis in observed data.
Click to expand...



Right. Which leads to the only logical conclusion, that the great majority of scientists and recognized scientific organization are involved in a conspiracy. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. They're all wrong and longview and other deniers are right. Scientists don't know nuthin'.
 
bluesmoke said:
Right. Which leads to the only logical conclusion, that the great majority of scientists and recognized scientific organization are involved in a conspiracy. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. They're all wrong and longview and other deniers are right. Scientists don't know nuthin'.
Click to expand...

Why not email them citing longviews very legitimate concerns then ? Nothing he has said here is incorrect . Prove otherwise ?
 
Media_Truth said:
Not "likely involved". This is the 97% consensus - "Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists."

The 97% consensus on global warming
Click to expand...
Again that is not what the data says,
"Figure 2. (v007) How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes?"
mean is 5.97 out of 7 or 85%, and not ask about a magnitude of a change.
and the next question,
"Figure 3. (v008) Climate models accurately simulate the climatic conditions for which they are calibrated. "
4.69 out of 7 or 67% believe the models can accurately simulate climate conditions.
The real limitation is,
" Figure 6. (v009c) How well do you think atmospheric models can deal with the influence of clouds? "
3.39 out of 7 or 48%, Wow less than half believe the models can deal with clouds, which make up the bulk of the
1.5 to 4.5 range uncertainty.
 
bluesmoke said:
Right. Which leads to the only logical conclusion, that the great majority of scientists and recognized scientific organization are involved in a conspiracy. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. They're all wrong and longview and other deniers are right. Scientists don't know nuthin'.
Click to expand...
You are the one claiming some sort of conspiracy, not me!
What we know is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and does cause some warming.
The amount of warming CO2 forcing alone should cause, is 3.71 Wm-2 or ~1.1 C, but even this is not verified.
How the climate would react to that 1.1 C, warming perturbation is the real question and the real uncertainty.
So again the consensus is not what you claim it is, the data from actual surveys show much lower agreement on things
like, can the models accurately simulate the climate, and can the models deal with clouds, (67% and 48%).
The official ECS range remains 1.5 to 4.5 C, but the observed data, shows that an ECS of 3 C is much too high
to fit within how the climate has responded to past warming perturbations.
 
The tragic effects of climate change is already happening all across the world.

"Slowing the planetary march toward climate catastrophe—and the multitrillion-dollar investment required to do it—has become a central issue of global and national debate. But there’s the equally expensive matter of dealing with the here and now: From historic wildfires to unprecedented hurricanes, global warming has reshaped the lives of millions, with increasingly tragic consequences.

While humans must pay to end the burning of fossil fuels, they must also pay to change how they live, invest and build in a climate-changed world. On Monday, an international commission of government and private-sector officials told countries and corporations that they have 15 months to jump-start reforms aimed at adapting to that changing environment. In 2020, the five-year anniversary of the Paris climate accord, signatories are scheduled to update their national commitments to the United Nations pact."

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The tragic effects of climate change is already happening all across the world.

"Slowing the planetary march toward climate catastrophe—and the multitrillion-dollar investment required to do it—has become a central issue of global and national debate. But there’s the equally expensive matter of dealing with the here and now: From historic wildfires to unprecedented hurricanes, global warming has reshaped the lives of millions, with increasingly tragic consequences.

While humans must pay to end the burning of fossil fuels, they must also pay to change how they live, invest and build in a climate-changed world. On Monday, an international commission of government and private-sector officials told countries and corporations that they have 15 months to jump-start reforms aimed at adapting to that changing environment. In 2020, the five-year anniversary of the Paris climate accord, signatories are scheduled to update their national commitments to the United Nations pact."

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are a robot.
 
flogger said:
Why not email them citing longviews very legitimate concerns then ? Nothing he has said here is incorrect . Prove otherwise ?
Click to expand...



Variously, with longview and other posters, evidence has been individually addressed by science and concluded not significant. Even when of little significance, such as solar forcing, the data is still fed into modeling. Whenever I provide the scientific refutation of each bit of denier's evidence, the deniers just come back with another bit and somewhere down the line repeat what has already been provided as evidence. Meaning, when a poster says because of such-and-such, AGW is not what science says it is, and that post is refuted by science links, they just come back with more bits of blah-blah. All this evidence being thrown against the wall is circulated in the science community and is reviewed and commented on. Until the science community says otherwise, I don't buy the deniers' argument and I do stand by the greater science community that says what it does. The deniers cannot post evidence that a significant portion of the science community buy into what they've been throwing against the wall. I'm looking to debate solution. That AGW is what science says it is has been established. It's time to work on solution.
 
longview said:
You are the one claiming some sort of conspiracy, not me!
What we know is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and does cause some warming.
The amount of warming CO2 forcing alone should cause, is 3.71 Wm-2 or ~1.1 C, but even this is not verified.
How the climate would react to that 1.1 C, warming perturbation is the real question and the real uncertainty.
So again the consensus is not what you claim it is, the data from actual surveys show much lower agreement on things
like, can the models accurately simulate the climate, and can the models deal with clouds, (67% and 48%).
The official ECS range remains 1.5 to 4.5 C, but the observed data, shows that an ECS of 3 C is much too high
to fit within how the climate has responded to past warming perturbations.
Click to expand...



Why do the great majority of climate scientists on record not recognize your evidence as so significant as to change their position on AGW? Maybe, if you have a good argument on that point, that would be worth discussion.
 
bluesmoke said:
Variously, with longview and other posters, evidence has been individually addressed by science and concluded not significant. Even when of little significance, such as solar forcing, the data is still fed into modeling. Whenever I provide the scientific refutation of each bit of denier's evidence, the deniers just come back with another bit and somewhere down the line repeat what has already been provided as evidence. Meaning, when a poster says because of such-and-such, AGW is not what science says it is, and that post is refuted by science links, they just come back with more bits of blah-blah. All this evidence being thrown against the wall is circulated in the science community and is reviewed and commented on. Until the science community says otherwise, I don't buy the deniers' argument and I do stand by the greater science community that says what it does. The deniers cannot post evidence that a significant portion of the science community buy into what they've been throwing against the wall. I'm looking to debate solution. That AGW is what science says it is has been established. It's time to work on solution.
Click to expand...

What solution wouldnt involve the impoverishment of vast swathes of humanity in its realisation ? Its you guys and your proposed 'solutions' that are the real threat to humanity not an extra 100PPM of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere :(
 
bluesmoke said:
Why do the great majority of climate scientists on record not recognize your evidence as so significant as to change their position on AGW? Maybe, if you have a good argument on that point, that would be worth discussion.
Click to expand...
It is not my fault that you do not understand the evidence! The data in the survey speaks for itself.
P.S. it is not a great majority who agree on the catastrophic predictions.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The tragic effects of climate change is already happening all across the world.

"Slowing the planetary march toward climate catastrophe—and the multitrillion-dollar investment required to do it—has become a central issue of global and national debate. But there’s the equally expensive matter of dealing with the here and now: From historic wildfires to unprecedented hurricanes, global warming has reshaped the lives of millions, with increasingly tragic consequences.

While humans must pay to end the burning of fossil fuels, they must also pay to change how they live, invest and build in a climate-changed world. On Monday, an international commission of government and private-sector officials told countries and corporations that they have 15 months to jump-start reforms aimed at adapting to that changing environment. In 2020, the five-year anniversary of the Paris climate accord, signatories are scheduled to update their national commitments to the United Nations pact."

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Click to expand...

Could you actually cite some sort of bad thing that has happened so far due to a slightly warmer world?

Anything at all?
 
longview said:
Again that is not what the data says,
"Figure 2. (v007) How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes?"
mean is 5.97 out of 7 or 85%, and not ask about a magnitude of a change.
and the next question,
"Figure 3. (v008) Climate models accurately simulate the climatic conditions for which they are calibrated. "
4.69 out of 7 or 67% believe the models can accurately simulate climate conditions.
The real limitation is,
" Figure 6. (v009c) How well do you think atmospheric models can deal with the influence of clouds? "
3.39 out of 7 or 48%, Wow less than half believe the models can deal with clouds, which make up the bulk of the
1.5 to 4.5 range uncertainty.
Click to expand...

See posts #s 301, 302, and 311. You are dishonestly cherrypicking some data.
 
longview said:
It is not my fault that you do not understand the evidence! The data in the survey speaks for itself.
P.S. it is not a great majority who agree on the catastrophic predictions.
Click to expand...

You deniers are all over the place and can't even agree on if there is global warming or global cooling right now.

'In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”'

The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change are all flawed — Quartz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom