Do you believe in global warming?

Quaestio said:

I accept the science of anthropogenic global warming because there is a very strong consilience of evidence from many different lines of investigation. Every major science institution around the world accepts the consilience of evidence.

Nothing to do with 'beliefs'.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should read this:

The Importance of Consilience in Science

Hawkeye10 said:

I believe that it is very likely that we humans are causing the Earth to heat up. I think we should put our best brains on the problem, and do nothing for now except start making plans for sea level rise and stuff of that nature. We should also going to have to decide if things start breaking down are we going to let people roam the planet like swarms of locust devastating every place they land? I am thinking maybe that is not such a hot idea.

We need to start talking about stuff like this.

Click to expand...

Talk is great as long as we speak of facts, and not bloviated ideas of alarmist. AGW is real, but if the worse case scenarios do happen if unchecked, that is still a century or more away. We have plenty of time to understand the climate sciences better. We are still in the infancy stages of the complexities around the climate sciences. There are several aspects of the geosciences in play, and it is exceptionally complex how they fit together.

The lies and propaganda do nothing but split people into two camps, instead of having dialog. There is a political aspect. The IPCC is a government entity, and has an agenda.

What is worse are the scientists who also practice punditry, then refuse to debate the other scientists that disagree with them... Are you listening Michael Mann?

As for sea level rise, that will be a long process, and people will relocate as needed. locust... It wouldn't surprise me if the Alarmist crowd goes all biblical without even realizing it.

DaveFagan said:

There is nothing controversial about the subject. ExxonMobil spent millions of dollars getting anti global warming news into the Fake News Mainstream Media and paid $10,000 per papers by Phds who agreed in advance to write anti global warming papers. Next time you're not doing sumpin', go outside and start your car and then get out and hold your hand over the exhaust pipe outlet. Then as it burns your hand, inquire where that heat goes from billions of cars, trucks, planes, trains, and the wheels of industry, and the 0s and 1s of the IoT. Extinction in process. An anthropological event, don't ya' know?

Click to expand...

How many dollars have agenda oriented government agencies paid scientists, in grants, to produce papers supporting alarmist positions.

You are right to follow the money, but the alarmist money far outweighs the spenders like Exxon.

Quaestio said:

The Importance of Consilience in Science

"While it has been pointed out many times that this is not an even debate and that the vast majority of climate scientists are in one camp (for example here and here) this by itself is not particularly helpful: science is not a democracy. But what has been underplayed is that the consilience of evidence for anthropogenic climate change is particularly strong. The IPCC reports are a consilience of hundreds of independent lines of evidence all converging on the same or similar conclusions. Supplement that body of work with complementary investigations outside the reports and the consilience builds; we have more confidence that their conclusions are correct. This is then magnified because of the consilience between the investigations within climate science research and the findings of the rest of science. They all point to the same conclusions about how the world works and the climate science is comfortably nested within all the other scientific disciplines."

Click to expand...

I got laugh about the article. It points out the facts behind consilience, but then misses the bias among the majority.

Bucky said:

LOL. Well, we do not need to turn this into a religious debate.

Click to expand...

Why not?

There are already so many that have faith that AGW will destroy us.

Global warming is occurring. It's not evident that man is the one doing the warming. In other words, if CO2 emissions were eliminated completely from the 'sphere, would global warming cease to exist? There answer to that is no. The human species would cease to exist, however, since we emit CO2 when we exhale.

CO2 is approximately 5 percent of the total of greenhouse gases in our 'sphere that trap heat. What shall be done to the other approximately 95 percent of heat trapping greenhouse gases when, for example, Antarctica completely melts?

Yes - I believe in global warming. What else could have ended the ice age? The question is: how much can mankind reasonably be expected to do in order to control the climate of the planet? If mankind lacks the ability (will?) to stop the Jihad and mass death from starvation an curable disease "on the planet" then why should we expect mankind to laser focus on policies that, a best, might show some minor global climate difference in four or five generations from now?

Bucky, great topic! I believe in Global Warming. I wake up every day more worried about how the human race avoids the next Chicxulub-size crater! Do we zap it in space with a laser? Does the advent of the Trump Administration significantly change the history of our human race and make Planet Earth more clean and healthy? So much to think about!

As the eco-terrorists define Global Warming, no. Do I believe the earths atmosphere is ever changing? Sure.... has man had an effect on that atmosphere, sure. We just can't agree on the quantification because it's no such a political football and big business issue in the hundreds of billions of dollars world wide, the new and existing information has lost credibility. I don't think we can ever get a straight answer of just facts. So... what do we do?

We use common sense. Since neither deniers nor advocates can be believed, we need to try to live more in harmony with our environment. What do I mean? I mean don't ****ing litter...., recycle when possible. Compost organic materials. Limit use of known harmful chemicals, try to save energy if for nothing else cost savings. Litter is my biggest pet peeve - perhaps it's because I grew up seeing the crying Indian commercial when I was young and it stuck with me but there's no excuse for it and I would, if I could, enforce litterbugs and fine them $10,000 each offense for ever cig butt flicked out of car windows to dumping tires and mattresses.

Lord of Planar said:

How many dollars have agenda oriented government agencies paid scientists, in grants, to produce papers supporting alarmist positions.

You are right to follow the money, but the alarmist money far outweighs the spenders like Exxon.

Click to expand...

I believe you miss the point. Most scientists just crunch the data and reveal conclusions. Only the Energy Corporations have been accused of paying for papers with pre-ordained agendas. The whole Global Warming is a simple mathematical circumstance. Heat in minus heat out, or not out, as the case may be. Ergo, it is no surprise that the data always reveals the same answers in about 98% of research.

DaveFagan said:

I believe you miss the point. Most scientists just crunch the data and reveal conclusions. Only the Energy Corporations have been accused of paying for papers with pre-ordained agendas. The whole Global Warming is a simple mathematical circumstance. Heat in minus heat out, or not out, as the case may be. Ergo, it is no surprise that the data always reveals the same answers in about 98% of research.

Click to expand...

Scientists need income and are paid to continue to produce what their employers want. Government wants results that justify more government power and fossil fuel providers want results that justify more fossil fuel sales. Scientists will work for either.

ttwtt78640 said:

Scientists need income and are paid to continue to produce what their employers want. Government wants results that justify more government power and fossil fuel providers want results that justify more fossil fuel sales. Scientists will work for either.

Click to expand...

That's sounding suspiciously like a conspiracy theory.

Scientific funding is not put into place to find a way to expand governments power.

The NSF will fund research that is likely to address problems uncovered in previous research. If there is no signal of a real issue, there's plenty of places that could use the funding.

But there's a huge, blinking signal that AGW is going to be a very serious problem ahead. That's why the science is getting funded.

I don't believe in it, I accept it as fact.

Quaestio said:

I accept the science of anthropogenic global warming because there is a very strong consilience of evidence from many different lines of investigation. Every major science institution around the world accepts the consilience of evidence.

Nothing to do with 'beliefs'.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Maybe you should read this:

The Importance of Consilience in Science

Click to expand...

Duh. Maybe you should read my post again -where I linked to that article.

Do you not know how to click on a hyperlink in a sentence?

Lord of Planar said:

LOL...

I hear you. However, there is solid evidence the global temperatures have risen over time. My problem I those who turn around and ant to blame any random event on mankind's contribution to climate change. I call them faithful to the AGW dogma, and they treat the words of the alarmist priests like it is a religion.


We have warmed since the Maunder Minima. The sun started increasing in intensity in 1713, and we have been warming since. The solar peak was 1958, but if you consider how long equalization can take we may have finally equalized this last decade since the 1958 peak.


That movie was nothing but a well crafted propaganda piece.


LOL...

The polar bears are doing just fine.

I actually hope we have a few degrees of warming. We would have more land on this earth suited for living on. The extra warming is minimal in the equatorial areas and more in the northern latitudes, where Canada, Siberia, and Alaska would become more hospitable.

Click to expand...

You're amateur pseudoscience-based ideological opinions are irrelevant to science.

Quaestio said:

I accept the science of anthropogenic global warming because there is a very strong consilience of evidence from many different lines of investigation. Every major science institution around the world accepts the consilience of evidence.

Nothing to do with 'beliefs'.

Click to expand...

Where belief begins to come into play is how much warming is anthropogenic. With the questions surrounding impacts one impact quantification or determining regional effects science moves into very soft ground. And in my area of specialization i.e. social sciences and economics discussions could go on for ever.

Lord of Planar said:

I got laugh about the article. It points out the facts behind consilience, but then misses the bias among the majority.

Click to expand...

Your extreme confirmation bias is glaringly obvious to everyone but yourself.

Threegoofs said:

That's sounding suspiciously like a conspiracy theory.

Scientific funding is not put into place to find a way to expand governments power.

The NSF will fund research that is likely to address problems uncovered in previous research. If there is no signal of a real issue, there's plenty of places that could use the funding.

But there's a huge, blinking signal that AGW is going to be a very serious problem ahead. That's why the science is getting funded.

Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is precisely my point - no AGW problem then no more AGW NSF research funding. It does not take any great conspiracy theory to suggest that a climate scientist just might want to (continue to?) get that government funding.

Bucky said:

I for one do not believe in global warming as global warming is not a religion.

Based on my observation over the past 18 years, we have seen no significant warming. I want to look at objective numbers, not subjective opinions from politicians.

This is an extremely controversial subject, the science is very much in debate. I remember An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. Many of the predictions have been debunked. Scientists praised the movie when it came out..... they were also wrong.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe the polar bears are going to extinct? Mass chaos??? Cats and dogs sleeping with each other?

Click to expand...

I picked other.Mostly because when most people talk about climate change or global warming they are talking about man made global warming or man made climate change.I believe that global warming/climate change is something that occurs naturally regardless of how severe or minute those changes are. Anyone who says they believed the ice age happened can not say they do not believe in global warming/climate change.

joG said:

Where belief begins to come into play is how much warming is anthropogenic. With the questions surrounding impacts one impact quantification or determining regional effects science moves into very soft ground. And in my area of specialization i.e. social sciences and economics discussions could go on for ever.

Click to expand...

No- it's pretty clear that virtually all the recent warming comes from GHG.

This has been stated over and over in scientific papers, if you ever read them.

Other.

A little bit misleading because of the comment Bucky made regarding believe and religion. So my answer needs to be 'Other' since I too do not believe. But it is a fact that we do have an impact on the climate, and this is something we should minimise. Inconvenient Truth Debunked? Politicians' subjective opinions? No, Climate and the derived climate change is not an exact science. It is not easy to accurately predict what will happen in the near future, let alone in the distant future. At the same time there are too many people that have an interest in debunking the stories we hear regarding climate change and this applies to both parties that do and do not believe in climate change.

What you often see is that 99 out of a 100 reports show that there is a problem while 1 report denies this. And than this is the report that is being quoted by a party that has interest in not making changes. Sad development. At the same time the NGO's have seriously screwed themselves over by lying about the extent of climate change and they have therefore lost a lot of credibility.

Anyway, after the industrial revolution started we have really started to kick ass and shown very little respect for the environment. Mostly out of greed and ignorance so that we can quickly become richer. And of course, for a long time there was no knowledge about climate change whatsoever, what could cause it and how one could avoid it. Out earth can take a serious punch. So I am not overly worried to be honest. Maybe the sea level will rise and a lot of people will get displaced. Maybe we will get more extreme weather phenomena which will cost us billions. But earth will recover eventually. The mistake we make is that we are arguing about this. Because no matter how we look at it and no matter who is right or wrong, we should simply try to live in a way that has the least impact on our environment and stop walking behind the facts.

What makes any predictions even more difficult is that earth (with the Sun!) goes through cycles which have a tremendous impact on our climate. We are now talking about centimeters to maybe 1-2 meters of sea level change in the short term (100-200y) but during the last ice age the sea levels were 120m lower during the peak of the last ice age... (The Brits were actually connected with Europe in those days... ) And between the 2 previous ice ages the sea levels were about 4m higher than present. Both changes would be a serious problem today if this were to happen. But it doesn't happen overnight.

So yes I do think that we are helping to change the climate. I do think we should try to anything we can to minimize our impact on the environment. But I am not convinced how much of an impact we actually have on any climatological change that are taking place or will take place later.

Joey

ttwtt78640 said:

That (bolded above) is precisely my point - no AGW problem then no more AGW NSF research funding. It does not take any great conspiracy theory to suggest that a climate scientist just might want to (continue to?) get that government funding.

Click to expand...

That's just not how science works.

If you can find a different thing to pin the warming on- and it's scientifically valid- that's what will get funded, and the guy who discovers it will be hailed a genius with lifetime funding.

But that's not happening because the science is clear.

If our government wanted to do science to get control of people, you'd be hearing amazing stories of how extraterrestrials are real and coming to get us.

Bucky said:

I don't need a minority of the population pushing their believes on me. We are brainwashing our kids. They should be learning Math, English, U.S history, Chemistry, Physical Education, etc... not nonsense like evolution and if we don't turn off the lights, the world will get so hot we will burn.

These fairy tale stories are nothing but tall tales to scare us. Scientists are getting rich of grants and these global warming peddlers are making millions of dollars based on preying on people's fears.

Click to expand...

If we can't trust scientists and other experts to understand their own fields than why should we be teaching kids math or chemistry? Couldn't those be part of the global scientific conspiracy as well?

Bucky said:

I for one do not believe in global warming as global warming is not a religion.

Based on my observation over the past 18 years, we have seen no significant warming. I want to look at objective numbers, not subjective opinions from politicians.

This is an extremely controversial subject, the science is very much in debate. I remember An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. Many of the predictions have been debunked. Scientists praised the movie when it came out..... they were also wrong.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe the polar bears are going to extinct? Mass chaos??? Cats and dogs sleeping with each other?

Click to expand...

Of course there is global warming - and global cooling. The debate really is how much does man contribute and if man can really do anything to stop it when it is happening.

Moderate Right said:

Of course there is global warming - and global cooling. The debate really is how much does man contribute and if man can really do anything to stop it when it is happening.

Click to expand...

Not really.

There isn't much scientific debate that virtually all of the recent warming is anthropogenic.

And we know exactly what to do and have known it for decades- we need to sharply curtail fossil fuel usage to reduce GHG emissions.

It's very clear, but some people just don't like hearing it, so they have to make up stories in their head like you illustrate.