• 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!

Climate scientists give clear warning

OscarLevant said:
2004 Oreskes study of climate scientists: 100% ( agree that climate change is man made )

2009 Doran study ..................................97%

2010 Anderegg study...............................97%

2013 Cook study.....................................97%

2014 Verheggen......................................97%

2014 Stenhouse......................................91%

2015 Carlton.......................................... 97%


Climate change deniers cherry pick, the find guys at the bottom left side of the graph and say ' not all scientists' etc. While technically true, but misleading given that the graph below reveals the the more expertise on climate, the stronger the consensus, and that is the key fact.

View attachment 67247102
Click to expand...

Not impressed. Sorry!
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Yes, the evidence of manmade global warming is overwhelming. You also have Bush and Trump that stopped legislation to curb emissions and also withdraw US from international climate agreements. So of course they could have directed government funds to disprove manmade global warming if it was any evidence to be found. Instead you have federal reports during Trump’s presidency that warns about climate changes and its negative effects.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
Click to expand...

Yet C02 emissions as well as other pollutants are down in the US and up in Europe. Go figure!
 
ObamacareFail said:
Yet C02 emissions as well as other pollutants are down in the US and up in Europe. Go figure!
Click to expand...

Right...all based on the fanciful notion that turning on and off CO2 emissions is like turning on and off a light switch. "Trump elected, emission standards changed...CO2 emissions continue downward trend established since at least 2011".....meaning what exactly?

US CO2 output is predicted to climb again by late 2019 and into 2020. Then what?
 
LowDown said:
It is indeed too late. Too late, that is, for these government climate advocates to try to start sounding reasonable.

They have lost their credibility with anyone who matters, which is why most governments only give lip service and a few token actions to the climate issue. I predict that it will be a long time before they get their credibility back, if ever.

My question is this: How long will it take for the people behind the funding of climate doom research to learn that their money isn't taking the world where they want it to go? That is, toward an authoritarian world government.* When are they going to cut their losses?

*Nope, not just a conspiracy theory. Explicit calls have been made for exactly that.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is a threat to human survival. Mankind can literally become extinct due to stupidity. Imagine how stupid you have to be to just ignore your scientists because you think you know better.

What great catastrophe would result if we just work hard to reduce pollution? What would be the great harm?

Now consider the POSSIBLE harm if you're wrong and we do nothing?

This is BASIC rationality. There is uncertainty but you have to evaluate the potential harm. Your house may never have had a fire in 60 years so the probability that your house will burn is down is very very low. But if your house burns down you will lose everything. So the rational thing to do is to buy fire insurance. That's rational behavior. You don't seem to understand this.

I'm optimistic that with better education there will be fewer voters like you.
 

Top 12 Debunked Climate Scares of 2018

Reposted from The GWPF January 2018: Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: Study PARIS (AFP) – Earth’s surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday (Jan 17) which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions. A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases… . . .
 
OscarLevant said:
Wasn't trying to impress anyone.

But, if you want to wave the flag of ignorance, you're doing a good job.
Click to expand...
What ignorance would that be? Climate scares claiming man made causes have been around since 1895. I am still waiting for the global cooling we were promised in the 1970s. Just getting a scientist or group of scientists to claim man made climate change is real, does not make it real. That's the thing about government grant funded science. Most start their research with preconceived conclusions based on whatever is more likely to get grants approved.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
ObamacareFail said:
What ignorance would that be? Climate scares claiming man made causes have been around since 1895. I am still waiting for the global cooling we were promised in the 1970s. Just getting a scientist or group of scientists to claim man made climate change is real, does not make it real. That's the thing about government grant funded science. Most start their research with preconceived conclusions based on whatever is more likely to get grants approved.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your cynicism is noted.

Okay, hear me out...

The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that climate change is serious and man made and the window available to do something about it is very narrow. Look at the data.

Doing something about it is a good thing, and good for jobs, too. There is no down side to doing something about it.

There is a big down side to doing nothing. Now then, for your argument, a metaphor:

Economists have been warning about the collapse of the dollar since I was 19 years of age, probably further back than that.

Has it collapsed? No. However, the consensus is still true that we are headed in that direction, for all the evidence does still point to the fact that we are headed for an economic collapse. The economy is a huge rubber band being stretched, if we keep stretching it, it will snap eventually, that is a fact of physics.

Thing is, no one can actually see how big the rubber band is. Early predictions didn't see that the band was much bigger, otherwise they wouldn't have been so alarmist so early on, but does that change the fact that we are headed in that direction? NO. Does it mean that we can stop being financially responsible and try and reverse the course? NO!

It's kinda similar with the environment.

The point is, there might be devastation looming in the next 5 years, or 50 years, or 1000 years.

Thing is, it is better to ERR ON THE SIDE OF DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, than to listen to nay sayers and pretend nothing is going on worth doing anything about it.


Another thing, doing something about it means green jobs. There is no down side.

WTFU.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Your cynicism is noted.

Okay, hear me out...

The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that climate change is serious and man made and the window available to do something about it is very narrow. Look at the data.

Doing something about it is a good thing, and good for jobs, too. There is no down side to doing something about it.

There is a big down side to doing nothing. Now then, for your argument, a metaphor:

Economists have been warning about the collapse of the dollar since I was 19 years of age, probably further back than that.

Has it collapsed? No. However, the consensus is still true that we are headed in that direction, for all the evidence does still point to the fact that we are headed for an economic collapse. The economy is a huge rubber band being stretched, if we keep stretching it, it will snap eventually, that is a fact of physics.

Thing is, no one can actually see how big the rubber band is. Early predictions didn't see that the band was much bigger, otherwise they wouldn't have been so alarmist so early on, but does that change the fact that we are headed in that direction? NO. Does it mean that we can stop being financially responsible and try and reverse the course? NO!

It's kinda similar with the environment.

The point is, there might be devastation looming in the next 5 years, or 50 years, or 1000 years.

Thing is, it is better to ERR ON THE SIDE OF DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, than to listen to nay sayers and pretend nothing is going on worth doing anything about it.


Another thing, doing something about it means green jobs. There is no down side.

WTFU.
Click to expand...

Billions (trillions?) of dollars wasted on feckless climate change remediation would not be available to address real problems. That's the downside.
 
I'm still waiting to hear how the climate police are going to enforce their rules on China, India and Russia.
 
Jack Hays said:
Billions (trillions?) of dollars wasted on feckless climate change remediation would not be available to address real problems. That's the downside.
Click to expand...



Your premise is false.
 
veritas1 said:
I'm still waiting to hear how the climate police are going to enforce their rules on China, India and Russia.
Click to expand...


America was the only country not to sign the Paris Accord. Apparently, they are waiting for us.
 
Grokmaster said:
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
Click to expand...

Let's analyze the possibilities:

One of these two has to be true:

1. If we reduce pollution now we can prevent a climate change disaster

2. If we reduce pollution now it won't change anything because there was no eminent disaster or there's nothing we can do about it.

If #1 is true and we do nothing the results are catastrophic to the entire human race.

If #2 is true and we do listen to scientists then what is the great harm? We lost some fossil fuel jobs sooner than we needed to? We transitioned to renewable energies sooner than we had to? We cleaned up the air more than we had to?

In other words, you don't have much to lose if you work to reduce pollution but you have a lot to lose if you ignore avoidable climate change.
 
OscarLevant said:
Your premise is false.
Click to expand...

The "premise" is outlined in a truly great book.

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World ...


https://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State.../0521010683



The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World Paperback – August 30, 2001.... Bjørn Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, challenges widely held beliefs that the world environmental situation is getting worse and worse in his new book, The Skeptical ...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
2004 Oreskes study of climate scientists: 100% ( agree that climate change is man made )

2009 Doran study ..................................97%

2010 Anderegg study...............................97%

2013 Cook study.....................................97%

2014 Verheggen......................................97%

2014 Stenhouse......................................91%

2015 Carlton.......................................... 97%
Click to expand...
A quick look at the numbers on your list show it need a bit of refinement.
2004 Oreskes study of climate scientists: 100% ( agree that climate change is man made ) Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change
(Not A survey)

2009 Doran study ..................................97%
"Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature."
(No 97% on Doran)
2010 Anderegg study...............................97%
(Looks like they did a paper review like cook.)

2013 Cook study.....................................97%
(Reviewed abstracts, not a survey)
2014 Verheggen......................................97%
"90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming."
(Not 97% and not all the pool of respondents)
2014 Stenhouse......................................91%
"1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated, and 2) climate expertise, 3) liberal political ideology, and 4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated—with 1) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, 2) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human caused, and 3) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed."
(It is not clear they were asking relevant questions.)

2015 Carlton.......................................... 97%
"Most respondents (93.6%) believe that mean temperatures have risen and most (91.9%) believe in an anthropogenic contribution to rising temperatures."
(Not 97% and the 93.6% was that they believed temperatures have warmed.)
You left off the Harris poll,
"97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring"
 
OscarLevant said:
Your cynicism is noted.

Okay, hear me out...

The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that climate change is serious and man made and the window available to do something about it is very narrow. Look at the data.

Doing something about it is a good thing, and good for jobs, too. There is no down side to doing something about it.

There is a big down side to doing nothing. Now then, for your argument, a metaphor:

Economists have been warning about the collapse of the dollar since I was 19 years of age, probably further back than that.

Has it collapsed? No. However, the consensus is still true that we are headed in that direction, for all the evidence does still point to the fact that we are headed for an economic collapse. The economy is a huge rubber band being stretched, if we keep stretching it, it will snap eventually, that is a fact of physics.

Thing is, no one can actually see how big the rubber band is. Early predictions didn't see that the band was much bigger, otherwise they wouldn't have been so alarmist so early on, but does that change the fact that we are headed in that direction? NO. Does it mean that we can stop being financially responsible and try and reverse the course? NO!

It's kinda similar with the environment.

The point is, there might be devastation looming in the next 5 years, or 50 years, or 1000 years.

Thing is, it is better to ERR ON THE SIDE OF DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, than to listen to nay sayers and pretend nothing is going on worth doing anything about it.


Another thing, doing something about it means green jobs. There is no down side.

WTFU.
Click to expand...
Why are you throwing in everything but the kitchen sink? The claim that there is an overwhelming consensus on man made climate change is a bald faced lie that the left repeats constantly hoping that it will be accepted a truth.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
veritas1 said:
I'm still waiting to hear how the climate police are going to enforce their rules on China, India and Russia.
Click to expand...

Oh...that's "different"....
 
ObamacareFail said:
Yet C02 emissions as well as other pollutants are down in the US and up in Europe. Go figure!
Click to expand...

The cost of renewables have drop so much that even Republican politicians are on a local level starting to see the benefits of renewable energy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#631e530f3da7

US have also greater opportunity not only to reduce C02 emission but also save money trough for example energy efficiency measure. Because US C02 emissions, energy use and electric power consumption per capita is more than double that of many other developed countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/eg.use.elec.kh.pc

EU is also on target of reducing their C02 emission by 20 percent during the period 1990-2020. Even if you had an increae last year and EU countries can of course also do a lot more.
 
Meeting the Paris Agreement could save a million lives per year globally just by reducing air pollutions.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...fl5F8cSRCxSxRYf2GXMmdDi4CwzZI8heXVwFv2zfvJ3dA
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Meeting the Paris Agreement could save a million lives per year globally just by reducing air pollutions.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...fl5F8cSRCxSxRYf2GXMmdDi4CwzZI8heXVwFv2zfvJ3dA
Click to expand...
I have no problems with the concept of clean energy for the sake of reducing pollution where we can. However my point still holds. The suggestion that man is causing the climate to change is hysterical nonsense and has become a cultish hoax. And as pollution goes, the real problem is third world nations like India as well as China. And they are getting a pass on the silly climate agreements like the Paris Climate Accord.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Meeting the Paris Agreement could save a million lives per year globally just by reducing air pollutions.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...fl5F8cSRCxSxRYf2GXMmdDi4CwzZI8heXVwFv2zfvJ3dA
Click to expand...

How would you test that claim? Even if you were to immediately implement a specific policy and wait until 2050, you could only quantify the number of people dying every year at best. How would you quantify how many would be dying every year in 2050 if a specific policy hadn't been implemented in 2019 in order to do a comparison, especially considering that the number of people dying every year worldwide has such a massive number of contributing to factors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom