Climate change and by extension global warming is a ruse

And I thought you were ok for a villa fan

I'm studying climate change at PhD level, if I promise you it is genuinely happening will you believe me?

I'll never call villa **** again???

It's because us climate scientists are just rolling in the cash.

I thought, I want to make a lot of money in life, I know, I'll be an environmental scientist! Surefire way to the big bucks!

I think my argument would be is it man made global warming or not or just something of a natural cycle that the earth goes through.

I really believe when it comes to global warming, it is more of just a natural cycle the planet goes through.

There is no conclusive evidence for or against global warming. No matter how objectively you read in to it.

It disgusts me that people voice their opinion on the subject based on their political alliance; it is a scientific debate not a political one.

Anyone who claims to know conclusively either way is a liar.

It's because us climate scientists are just rolling in the cash.

I thought, I want to make a lot of money in life, I know, I'll be an environmental scientist! Surefire way to the big bucks!

And I thought you were ok for a villa fan

I'm studying climate change at PhD level, if I promise you it is genuinely happening will you believe me?

I'll never call villa **** again???

So one might say you have a vested interest in it happening.

Well, I'm sure the oil companies could help if you just agree to say that everything's fine.

Not really, I'm a conservationist, the species I'll be an expert on by the end of my PhD is likely to go extinct because of climate change.

I don't think climate change happening is in anyone's interests, let's be honest.

The climate has continually changed. Species become extinct as new species are created.

Do you think though we may be mixing up conservation with climatic changes though. I know for example the environmentalist David Bellamy has been criticised for questioning the link between environmental activitist and consevratiknalists.

All the best for the PhD though.

Hmm didn't know there were so many idiots on this forum

...and what is your opinion based on? What you've heard off other people, who have heard it off someone else who is about as knowledgeable as a glass of water on the subject?

Climate change is far too serious a topic to have people trying to 'be clever' with the conspirecy theories about tax.





Original source: noaa

Here's the problem - like just everything in Climate Science, your graphs don't tally with your argument.

The point is that the science in this field is weak. I'm not saying there isn't AGW. What I'm saying is that the science sucks, but the hypothesis is being bulldozered through despite not being strongly supported. You don't do this with anything else - medicine, physics, astronomy. Yet with Climate Science, the shoddiest of work and most blatant misrepresentations are allowed to go unchecked, and often take the form of a facebook meme.

Come on - let's be honest. Do you really know what your graphs mean? Do you really know what the substance of the papers they originated from was? Or do you just like them because they look pretty and you thought that some lines and colours would make everyone believe in impending global armageddon?

Here's the problem - like just everything in Climate Science, your graphs don't tally with your argument.

The point is that the science in this field is weak. I'm not saying there isn't AGW. What I'm saying is that the science sucks, but the hypothesis is being bulldozered through despite not being strongly supported. You don't do this with anything else - medicine, physics, astronomy. Yet with Climate Science, the shoddiest of work and most blatant misrepresentations are allowed to go unchecked, and often take the form of a facebook meme.

Come on - let's be honest. Do you really know what your graphs mean? Do you really know what the substance of the papers they originated from was? Or do you just like them because they look pretty and you thought that some lines and colours would make everyone believe in impending global armageddon?

I wish it was just this forum, every newspaper article on climate change there's so many people claiming it to be a hoax, even on the independant and guardian. It's scary.

Science isn't supposed to be about consensus. It doesn't matter if 97% of scientists think a certain thing, if they're wrong. At one point, 97% of doctors thought that the way to cure everything was to let you bleed to death.

The problem as I see it is that Climate Science is observational science, but it's not being treated as such.

The actual amount of greenhouse gasses is rather minuscule in comparison with all other sources.

Also the more recent *spikes* are rather ridiculous as well, we have seen similar spikes in the past, but they're usually ignored as being very short in nature. The planets has also been warming up since around 1715, long before any large scale industrialisation, modern deforestation, man made green house gasses or large scale farming. People also fail to realise last time major deforestation happened (in Europe I may add) the little ice age started shortly after. Finally long term figures regarding temperatures are not quite as accurate as most claim, mostly unable to detect spikes (even though they're ignored when they do find spikes), ice cores or example don't do anything to provide insight on the Younger Dryas.

Another thing is the consensus of Man Made global warming in science. While most agree with global warming the 97% comes from two studies, one itself claimed by one of it's co-authors should of had a lukewarm or middle ground category (aka suggesting it's a possibility but not proven) while the second only used one third of which they had to specifically express whether or not it was man made or not. Finally those studies usually only use those who specifically cover climate change, other area's that equally provide insight are often sidelined as being non experts, even though such area's are closer to a 50% rate.

Finally I remember around the mid 00's when the debate was really kicking off you had a lot more disagreement in the community. As soon as politically it became ideal to agree with global warming being caused by men you started to see a fair amount of dismissals. Scientific consensus is quite often just a group of widely respected scientist's deciding what is and is not correct, if they disagree they cite poor evidence even though usually their own work is not much better (if at all). It's why you get much more solid scientific facts or idea's being rejected only to be accepted decades later.

The climate has continually changed. Species become extinct as new species are created.

Consensus does not mean something is definitely, 100% right. However, consensus does mean that it's likely to be the best conclusion from the available evidence. Given all of the evidence we have available, any conclusion other than "we are the driving cause of climate change and the climate change we should expect will be extremely serious" doesn't fit the observations. Of course it's possible that new evidence comes to light and we have to make a new theory or adapt the old one but that evidence doesn't exist. All of the data we have access to - and it's a lot of data - strongly, strongly suggests that the above conclusion is correct and importantly, that it's going to have an incredibly dangerous affect on humans.

If you carry out an investigation to see if an activity is harmful and all of the evidence you've gathered strongly suggests it will be harmful, you wouldn't still carry out the activity nonetheless because it's possible that a future study could possibly suggest the previous studies are wrong. It is possible that a future study would show that but at the present, there is no reason for you to reasonably think that the activity would be anything but harmful. Of course, a good scientist would carry on studying the subject, testing old theories to make sure they stand up and modify the theory to fit new evidence but the fact of the matter is that you act on the conclusions you can make from evidence that you've got. Given the massive harm that current conclusions suggest will happen if we carry on doing nothing, waiting for evidence that doesn't yet exist and evidence we have no good reason to think will exist is not only foolish but incredibly dangerous.




Firstly, the fact that the concentrations are low is completely irrelevant - what matters is the potential of the gas to trap energy. If gas A has a warming potential of 2 and gas B has a warming potential of 1, 1L of A will have the same effect as 2L of B. The fact that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect is a completely irrefutable fact that's elementary physics.

We've not seen similar spikes in CO2 concentration before. The last time a similar rate of CO2 change appeared in the paleoclimatic archive was just before the Permian Mass Extinction. The CO2 concentration is higher now than it has ever been in the previous 800,000 years - we know that as a fact - and it is likely to be higher than any point in the previous 2.5-3.0 million years. There hasn't been any significant warming since the 1900s-ish, not entirely sure where your 1715 claim is coming from (I'm also not sure why you keep going on about deforestation, it's important but it's not the driving cause of AGW). The little ice age had absolutely nothing to do with deforestation in Europe, it was likely to do with changes in solar activity... which we know are not causing the current warming since we can directly observe changes in solar insolation and there's absolutely no significant change going on. Long term temperature records are definitely not incredibly accurate and nobody is denying this (however, hyperthermal events are very likely to be recorded in the paleoclimate archives because of the massive geochemical and physical effects they have on the planet. You have to remember, scientists don't just rely on one proxy. Ice cores are popular because they're easy to understand but there are literally hundreds to thousands of different proxies scientists use to reconstruct ancient climates). There isn't particularly relevant to the question though. We understand this planet fairly well and we understand the basic energy changes that result in changes in planetary temperature. There is absolutely no mechanism that can explain the changes in temperature that we are observing other than a mechanism driven by human CO2 emissions. Every single hyperthermal event that has happened in history has been driven by sudden increases in heat trapping from greenhouse gasses.

I've responded to your criticisms of the surveys about papers already. If you've got a survey that's trying to establish whether or not a consensus exists on the matter of whether or not climate change is anthropogenic, you can only choose papers that address this. If you've got a paper talking about proposed mechanisms for D-O events over the last 100,000 years, it is totally irrelevant to the question you're trying to ask, I don't understand what's so difficult to get about this. Climate change is a huge topic in the Earth Sciences, it's not just about modern climate change. Most papers published in this area are not about modern climate change so of course they're going to be excluded. Including them would make the survey totally invalid.

And you're incorrect, there never was disagreement within the scientific community. If you actually ask active research scientists working in this area, every single one will irrefutably agree that humans are almost certainly the driving cause of climate change. The whole illusion of controversy is driven by lobbying groups like the Heartland Foundation (someone linked an article by them earlier in this thread) who are paid by fossil fuel corporations to spread misinformation and by the media which presents the issue as a political debate. There is no controversy about this in the scientific community... you can easily see this for yourself by visiting any university Earth Sciences or Atmospheric Physics department, you don't have to take my word for it.



The natural background rate of extinction is around 0.1-1.0 species per million per year. The current rate of extinction is between 10-100 species per million per year and that could well be a massive underestimate.

Impressive cut and paste.

So are you part of the 'death to capitalism' brigade.

Why do te IPCC leep downgrading their predictions?