Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Climate change and by extension global warming is a ruse Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Native To Europe)
    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.
    That doesn't make sense. Global warming isn't something that people are trying to prove, ''global warming'' is the term used to describe what has been observed (an average increase in the Earth's temperature by around 1oC in the last 100 years).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The argument that it is a "ruse" is total rubbish that causes me to have a very low opinion of those who promote that idea.

    It's one thing to be skeptical of the man made climate change theory, but if you say it's a "ruse" you're basically saying that not only is it untrue, but it also being promoted to be true by people with ulterior motives (I don't know if that was the intention of the OP). A bit like people who say "it's a scam". If you do that, you've crossed the line from healthy scientific skepticism and gone well into conspiratard territory.

    Note that there is a difference between just being skeptical of climate change, and actively promoting stupid conspiracy theories about climate change. Most of this comment is targeted at the latter group of people.

    It's a conspiracy theory that cannot possibly be true. The scientific evidence is so extensive that any conspiracy would have to involve many thousands of scientists from many different countries, of many different political persuasions, from many different research institutions and nearly all the world's scientific organisations. It would be impossible to organise it just in one country, let alone the whole world.

    Not only that, but the same people who promote these baseless conspiracy theories about the scientific community often ignore the well documented influence of fossil fuel interests on the climate change denier side.

    I really want to know what goes on inside the minds of people who think that climate scientists are biased and corrupted by grant funding, but the fossil fuel companies funding climate change denial lobby groups are the good guys exposing a big lie.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    That doesn't make sense. Global warming isn't something that people are trying to prove, ''global warming'' is the term used to describe what has been observed (an average increase in the Earth's temperature by around 1oC in the last 100 years).
    Global warming caused by human activity for the pedants amongst us
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    ...Every single national scientific body completely agreeing that there is conclusive evidence and 97% of the academic community agreeing is "inconclusive"?
    97% of 50% of papers.

    The number you're quiting isn't as solid as you think it is.....mainly because the topic has been politicised.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Native To Europe)
    source ?
    Pretty pathetic that I have to do this to be honest, but fine.

    A letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences

    Press release for the agreement of every national science academy of every major developed country

    Comprehensive review of every relevant climate abstract from 1991-2011 finding a 97.1% agreement for the consensus

    Review of directly relevant research from 1993-2003, with not a single paper rejecting the consensus
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    97% of 50% of papers.

    The number you're quiting isn't as solid as you think it is.....mainly because the topic has been politicised.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming
    97% of 50% of papers because the other 50% weren't expressing a view as to whether or not it's anthropogenic. Climate change is a massive topic in fields like paleoclimatology that aren't relevant to modern climate change. If you do a survey of all papers mentioning climate change, a large number of them are going to be completely irrelevant to the consensus as to whether or not it's anthropogenic so of course they're going to be excluded... I specifically remember explaining this to you twice before.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    97% of 50% of papers because the other 50% weren't expressing a view as to whether or not it's anthropogenic. Climate change is a massive topic in fields like paleoclimatology that aren't relevant to modern climate change. If you do a survey of all papers mentioning climate change, a large number of them are going to be completely irrelevant to the consensus as to whether or not it's anthropogenic so of course they're going to be excluded... I specifically remember explaining this to you twice before.
    Well done for acknowledging its not 97% though.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Native To Europe)
    source ?
    These are a good start. Chlorophile will probably post some others.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environme...fclimatechange

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08...global-warming

    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    97% of 50% of papers.

    The number you're quiting isn't as solid as you think it is.....mainly because the topic has been politicised.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming
    I'm pretty site it's 97% of 50% of papers because an awful lot of papers don't even mention the causes of climate change, but instead focusing on other areas not related to the causes.
    That's often been the case with the literature surveys I've looked at, and the number of papers that hold a position is still well into the thousands. Of the papers that hold a clear position, around 97% of them back the man made climate change theory.

    The papers that don't hold a position are not relevant because it's the consensus regarding the causes of climate change that we are interested in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This 97% nonsense has been debunked many times here is another alarming article in addition to maturestudents

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...sensus-claims/
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's a simple fact that the climate is in fact changing which is observable all across the entire planet. You can't deny that. The part you can happily debate over to try and take blame away from humanity is what is the cause of the changes that have occurred over the last two hundred years. I would argue that human expansion and industrialisation has accelerated the changes that were already occurring in the world. The climate is influenced by so many damn things both in this world and outside of it that you can't really say their is one sole thing controlling it.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Native To Europe)
    This 97% nonsense has been debunked many times here is another alarming article in addition to maturestudents

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...sensus-claims/
    If you'd actually read the article linked by MatureStudent, you'd understand why it's completely irrelevant. Including those papers would be a flaw because they have no opinion since they're totally irrelevant. If you've got a paper talking about climate change in response to the LIP during the Permian Mass Extinction, obviously you're not going to exclude it from a survey about views on the cause of modern climate change as it's totally irrelevant. It's as absurd as trying to find out what scientists think about the effectiveness of an anti brain-cancer drug, and including papers on the molecular structure of an antibody in leukaemia cells. Please use your brain...

    As for that article you linked me, first of all, the author is an employee of the Heartland institute which is a climate denialist lobbying organisation that openly admit it lies to support corporate PR campaigns. Heartland gets millions of dollars of donations from the fossil fuel industry in order to spread lies and misinformation about climate change and its employees have openly admitted this, so there is an incredibly serious conflict of interest. As for the article - if you'd read it - you'd realise how laughable it is. The entire basis of the argument is 2 cherry-picked peer-reviewed papers... out of over 10,000. The 97% figure is the lowest figure found in any survey of agreement with the consensus - there have been many other surveys done, all of which found a degree of agreement between 97-100%.

    There is no doubt at all within the scientific community that anthropogenic climate exists and that it is serious. The only people who deny this are people financed by the fossil-fuel lobby. You will not find a single reputable scientist in the field of climatology on the planet who disagrees with this consensus. If you talk to academics working on this area, there's not a doubt in their mind that the consensus is true. This "doubt" doesn't exist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    If you'd actually read the article linked by MatureStudent, you'd understand why it's completely irrelevant. Including those papers would be a flaw because they have no opinion since they're totally irrelevant. If you've got a paper talking about climate change in response to the LIP during the Permian Mass Extinction, obviously you're not going to exclude it from a survey about views on the cause of modern climate change as it's totally irrelevant. It's as absurd as trying to find out what scientists think about the effectiveness of an anti brain-cancer drug, and including papers on the molecular structure of an antibody in leukaemia cells. Please use your brain...

    As for that article you linked me, first of all, the author is an employee of the Heartland institute which is a climate denialist lobbying organisation that openly admit it lies to support corporate PR campaigns. Heartland gets millions of dollars of donations from the fossil fuel industry in order to spread lies and misinformation about climate change and its employees have openly admitted this, so there is an incredibly serious conflict of interest. As for the article - if you'd read it - you'd realise how laughable it is. The entire basis of the argument is 2 cherry-picked peer-reviewed papers... out of over 10,000. The 97% figure is the lowest figure found in any survey of agreement with the consensus - there have been many other surveys done, all of which found a degree of agreement between 97-100%.

    There is no doubt at all within the scientific community that anthropogenic climate exists and that it is serious. The only people who deny this are people financed by the fossil-fuel lobby. You will not find a single reputable scientist in the field of climatology on the planet who disagrees with this consensus. If you talk to academics working on this area, there's not a doubt in their mind that the consensus is true. This "doubt" doesn't exist.
    This is all conjecture
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Native To Europe)
    This is all conjecture
    What on earth? Did you even read anything I wrote, or are you so determined to believe your fantasy reality that your brain is literally incapable of processing any facts that don't agree with your warped view of the world? I can't believe the arrogance that you claim to know better than the global community of experts who are dedicating their intellect to understanding the climate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    What on earth? Did you even read anything I wrote, or are you so determined to believe your fantasy reality that your brain is literally incapable of processing any facts that don't agree with your warped view of the world? I can't believe the arrogance that you claim to know better than the global community of experts who are dedicating their intellect to understanding the climate.
    i have looked at both sides of the argument and it is inconclusive on both sides and your 97% nonsense does not hold water
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Native To Europe)
    i have looked at both sides of the argument and it is inconclusive on both sides and your 97% nonsense does not hold water
    You've not looked at both sides of the argument. I'm going to bet that you don't understand the first thing about climate change. You wouldn't hold thirty seconds if somebody started to question your rationale for your opinions. You've not given me an iota of evidence to suggest that the argument is inconclusive and you appear to think that you know better than every national scientific academy in every developed country as well as the entire scientific community. Even if you completely reject the 97% consensus which is insane and outright denial, you cannot deny the fact that every national academy of sciences completely agrees with the consensus, as well as 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, arguably the most prestigious and influential academy in the world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    The argument that it is a "ruse" is total rubbish that causes me to have a very low opinion of those who promote that idea.

    It's one thing to be skeptical of the man made climate change theory, but if you say it's a "ruse" you're basically saying that not only is it untrue, but it also being promoted to be true by people with ulterior motives (I don't know if that was the intention of the OP). A bit like people who say "it's a scam". If you do that, you've crossed the line from healthy scientific skepticism and gone well into conspiratard territory.

    Note that there is a difference between just being skeptical of climate change, and actively promoting stupid conspiracy theories about climate change. Most of this comment is targeted at the latter group of people.

    It's a conspiracy theory that cannot possibly be true. The scientific evidence is so extensive that any conspiracy would have to involve many thousands of scientists from many different countries, of many different political persuasions, from many different research institutions and nearly all the world's scientific organisations. It would be impossible to organise it just in one country, let alone the whole world.

    Not only that, but the same people who promote these baseless conspiracy theories about the scientific community often ignore the well documented influence of fossil fuel interests on the climate change denier side.

    I really want to know what goes on inside the minds of people who think that climate scientists are biased and corrupted by grant funding, but the fossil fuel companies funding climate change denial lobby groups are the good guys exposing a big lie.
    Very well, you interpreted my supposition to a T. Didn't say I believed it so no need to think little of people you don't know anything about. K?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    97% of 50% of papers because the other 50% weren't expressing a view as to whether or not it's anthropogenic. Climate change is a massive topic in fields like paleoclimatology that aren't relevant to modern climate change. If you do a survey of all papers mentioning climate change, a large number of them are going to be completely irrelevant to the consensus as to whether or not it's anthropogenic so of course they're going to be excluded... I specifically remember explaining this to you twice before.
    Why should it not be included if it (global warming) ends up indeed being a natural cycle and not caused by humans? And please, no condescension, your reputation preceeds you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    Why should it not be included if it (global warming) ends up indeed being a natural cycle and not caused by humans? And please, no condescension, your reputation preceeds you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If you've got a survey that aims to answer the question "Are humans largely responsible for modern climate change", you need papers that make a conclusion as per this statement. A paper on paleoenvironmental change is definitely relevant in the field of modern climate change but unless the paper actually has a conclusion as to the question the survey is trying to investigate, it can't be included.

    There are several categories you can put a paper in. It can endorse AGW, it can reject AGW, it can claim uncertainty about AGW (e.g. there's no conclusive evidence for either side) or it can express no position. The important point is that the latter two categories are not the same thing. Explicitly concluding a paper saying that the paper has found no conclusive evidence for either side is not the same thing as not expressing any position at all. Saying there's no conclusive evidence for either is making a positive statement, namely that there's no conclusive evidence for either side. Not expressing any position is exactly that - the paper's conclusion is not making a verdict on the matter. This survey analysed abstracts that had the phrases "global climate change" or "global warming". These are all massive topics and it's no surprise that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position because climate change is a massive field of study and only some papers will be relevant to the question we're interested in. I'll give another example of a paper, we could have a paper investigating Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles which are massive swings in temperature in the northern hemisphere which there is evidence of in the geological record. Understanding these cycles are important to understand the climate but a paper which talking about global climate change in relation to D-O cycles isn't making any kind of a statement of any kind about whether or not modern climate change is caused by humans.

    As for whether observed climate change is simply "a natural cycle", there really is no basis to believe this. The only thing that can possibly be driving the increases in heat content of the planet is the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gasses. We can prove that these emissions are from humans and all of the experimental data we have shows that this increasing concentration of GHGs is the driving cause behind the current climate change. There is no other natural mechanism known that could be causing these changes in temperature. We know for a fact that it is not the sun - the sun does have an impact on climate but we have been taking precise measurements of solar insolation intensity for a while now and the changes in solar insolation are negligible, they're nowhere near big enough to explain the changes in temperature that we have seen. The other really important thing is that we know the long-term problems of suddenly increasing CO2 concentrations. I won't go into depth but there was a previous event on earth called the Permian Mass Extinction, which essentially involved the sudden release of massive stores of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and recent geological evidence suggests the rate of release was similar to the rate at which we are currently releasing carbon dioxide (the total amount released is more than we have currently released but we're making 'good' progress). The result of this outgassing was a very severe temperature increase which, in combination with other effects like ocean acidification, caused the most sever mass extinction in the history of the planet and the climate took over 100,000 years to return to equilibrium. It's not a perfect model but it does demonstrate well the massive problems associated with mass carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    I certainly think our weather has become more extreme, but yeah I also think it's just an excuse for the government to tax us even more.
    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???
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    The argument that it is a "ruse" is total rubbish that causes me to have a very low opinion of those who promote that idea.

    It's one thing to be skeptical of the man made climate change theory, but if you say it's a "ruse" you're basically saying that not only is it untrue, but it also being promoted to be true by people with ulterior motives (I don't know if that was the intention of the OP). A bit like people who say "it's a scam". If you do that, you've crossed the line from healthy scientific skepticism and gone well into conspiratard territory.

    Note that there is a difference between just being skeptical of climate change, and actively promoting stupid conspiracy theories about climate change. Most of this comment is targeted at the latter group of people.

    It's a conspiracy theory that cannot possibly be true. The scientific evidence is so extensive that any conspiracy would have to involve many thousands of scientists from many different countries, of many different political persuasions, from many different research institutions and nearly all the world's scientific organisations. It would be impossible to organise it just in one country, let alone the whole world.

    Not only that, but the same people who promote these baseless conspiracy theories about the scientific community often ignore the well documented influence of fossil fuel interests on the climate change denier side.

    I really want to know what goes on inside the minds of people who think that climate scientists are biased and corrupted by grant funding, but the fossil fuel companies funding climate change denial lobby groups are the good guys exposing a big lie.
    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!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.