The Student Room Group

the climate change debate

Scroll to see replies

Original post by viddy9
No, more than 97% of climate scientists agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming, namely that humans are the major cause of global warming.

I can show you (more recent) studies that show a far lower percentage of support for the conclusion that you are arguing for.

Arguing that there is a "consensus" in Science at all is not only dangerous but anti-scientific.
consenustablecapture.png63.2KB
Original post by BasicMistake
You have lost all credibility with that statement. Communism? How on Earth is propelling technology to preserving the planet as we know it, Communism? Do you look at the Green Party and think that that is the model on which all groups who campaign for the environment is based? Your profile picture also shows you have some sort of hate for Communism and so your opinion is probably so warped that it isn't even coherent.

They want massive government control, regulation and subsidies. It isn't necessarily communism as such but it is definitely about pushing in the direction of a bigger, more totalitarian state.
Reply 22
Avatar for pjm600
pjm600
18
I'll bite, again

Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
This is one of the typical tactics of the environmentalist extremists. Say that the people who disagree with you are financed by "Big Oil" or "Big Tobacco" or whatever other nonsense to hide the fact that the pro AGW side get more from big oil than the anti-side do! Look into how much these companies give WWF.


They give money to WWF to say they give money to WWF, it improves their public image.

Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Yes, so?

Going along with it is far more dangerous because to the true believers doing something about it basically means communism.


Reducing GHG emissions can be achieved by means of energy efficiency optimization, decreased consumerism, through utilisation of sustainable energy etc.
Reply 23
Avatar for viddy9
viddy9
16
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
This is one of the typical tactics of the environmentalist extremists. Say that the people who disagree with you are financed by "Big Oil" or "Big Tobacco" or whatever other nonsense to hide the fact that the pro AGW side get more from big oil than the anti-side do! Look into how much these companies give WWF.


How much do these companies give WWF? And, why should it matter? WWF are not conducting research into global warming, they are an environmental group. For fossil fuel companies, it looks quite good of them to look like they care about the environment.

The point is that fossil fuel companies are, often through third-party sources, funding research seeking to cast doubt on global warming.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

Peer-reviewed scientific research, independent of funding from vested interests, has consistently found that average global temperatures are increasing, in large part due to human activities.

Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
I can show you (more recent) studies that show a far lower percentage of support for the conclusion that you are arguing for.

Arguing that there is a "consensus" in Science at all is not only dangerous but anti-scientific.


Interesting that you give me a table of results without any context. Luckily, I've encountered this particular argument before in my reading of various blogs of global warming deniers.

The information that you omit is that the survey only included the opinions of 25% of people in the American Meteorological Society, many of whom are not experts in the field of climate science. Indeed, the survey in question actually found that among the meteorologists whose primary field of expertise is climate science, "78% of climate experts [in the survey] actively publishing on climate change" believe that humans are the primary cause of global warming. It's also important to stress that the 97.2% figure comes from a survey of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies in the field of climate science from around the world. This survey, by contrast, collects the opinions of certain meteorologists in a certain meteorological society in the United States, and even then shows a clear majority (78% of climate experts) who believe that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

The concept of a scientific consensus makes perfect sense, both when it comes to rational thinking and in science in general.

Our confidence level in a belief should increase quite substantially if the scientific community overwhelmingly support the belief. It is why everyone here (presumably) accepts quantum theory and the general theory of relativity, even though most people don't understand these theories because they aren't qualified to.

The consensus of experts in a field; that is, those who are qualified to study and conduct research in the field, is important. It's true that arguing from consensus can sometimes be fallacious, but that's usually when the consensus is not based on qualifications or expertise.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by BasicMistake
EDIT: Can you expand on 'Yeah, so?'. I'd like to hear you say that when your grandchildren have to be evacuated due to a flood.

So he isn't allowed to express his opinion on the science?

How can you be so sure that will happen? You can't.
Original post by Strawberry68



CLIMATE CHANGE (just because the earth is getting hotter doesn't mean everywhere will receive warmer weather) is happening whether you like it or not.


The sólheimajökull glacier in Iceland has been retreating 100m a year for the last decade because of climate change.


Global warming is not a fraud.


I completely agree Climate Change is real and the impacts are a possibility. However you will find with 95% of the electorate and 95% of politicians is they live in the present. People care most about what is happening now to them and in particular to their finances. They do not care about the long term impacts of something such as climate change. People have this mentality that they will not be around to see the real damage.

I vote not on the basis of climate change but the economy, EU, NHS and education as these are things that will far more likely impact me and my finances. I used to really believe in combatting climate change but since the Human population will continue to grow exponentially we will only build more urban land, turn more rainforests into agriculture, desertification will create more desert land, more agriculture means more methane production by cattle and rice fields, more energy will be produced by fossil fuels, it is a never ending road.

I do not see how we could ever stop climate change because majority of people in the world only care about the present problems rather than the issues that occur in the long term. Even for a body like the EU who commit to battling climate change has still seen massive increases in CO2 production since. Even those who commit are not seeing results, It will not end.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
So he isn't allowed to express his opinion on the science?

How can you be so sure that will happen? You can't.

Who isn't allowed to express his opinion? Are you referring to yourself in third person?

No, I can't be sure. That is what science is all about; theories get debunked and replaced constantly. However, human influence is the best explanation we have at the moment and it is convincing one with plenty of evidence.
And if it is wrong, what is the worst that can happen? If it is right, the worst that can happen is a catastrophic change for the planet.
The consensus of an overwhelming proportion of the scientific community Vs the word of a few nutty right wingers...

...yeah I think I know who I believe.
Original post by BasicMistake
Who isn't allowed to express his opinion? Are you referring to yourself in third person?

No, the author of that website.

Original post by BasicMistake
No, I can't be sure. That is what science is all about; theories get debunked and replaced constantly. However, human influence is the best explanation we have at the moment and it is convincing one with plenty of evidence.
And if it is wrong, what is the worst that can happen? If it is right, the worst that can happen is a catastrophic change for the planet.

The worst that can happen is that we can have our personal liberties taken away, that we can destroy our economies and that will have given a massive amount of money to environmentalist vested interests for NOTHING.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Oh look another authoritarian moron comes in to the thread to lie.


Such is the weakness of your case...
Original post by viddy9
How much do these companies give WWF? And, why should it matter? WWF are not conducting research into global warming, they are an environmental group. For fossil fuel companies, it looks quite good of them to look like they care about the environment.

The point is that fossil fuel companies are, often through third-party sources, funding research seeking to cast doubt on global warming.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

Peer-reviewed scientific research, independent of funding from vested interests, has consistently found that average global temperatures are increasing, in large part due to human activities.

hahah. There are massive vested interests involved in advancing the idea that mankind is mostly or entirely responsible for global warming. Don't kid yourself that just because they get money stolen from people instead of being voluntarily given that they aren't vested interests.

What about ClimateGate? Did those scientists who lied or hid evidence that was contary to what they wanted do so in the interests of everyone?

The pro AGW has far more money at their disposable.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
No, the author of that website.


The worst that can happen is that we can have our personal liberties taken away, that we can destroy our economies and that will have given a massive amount of money to environmentalist vested interests for NOTHING.


I never said he couldn't express his opinion, I just said he is one of a few who are firmly against the idea of climate change.

You keep pretending that by adapting our economies and technological progressions towards the environment, we will end up in a crippled police state.
Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds? That is the greatest example of a slippery slope I have ever seen. I cannot explain to you why because you sound like you think that the vaguest idea of government control is a conspiracy to remove our freedoms and oppress us.
Original post by InnerTemple
Such is the weakness of your case...

Why hasn't there been any warming for 18 years then?
Why do the IPCC need to cover up and lie?
Original post by BasicMistake
I never said he couldn't express his opinion, I just said he is one of a few who are firmly against the idea of climate change.

There are loads of people who are against the idea that the climate is changing primarily due to the actions of man-kind and not other factors. Not many people agree that global warming hasn't happened.
Reply 34
Avatar for viddy9
viddy9
16
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
hahah. There are massive vested interests involved in advancing the idea that mankind is mostly or entirely responsible for global warming. Don't kid yourself that just because they get money stolen from people instead of being voluntarily given that they aren't vested interests.


Which vested interests are these? I've given you evidence of tens of millions of dollars being pumped into funding researchers promulgating global warming denial.

Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
What about ClimateGate? Did those scientists who lied or hid evidence that was contary to what they wanted do so in the interests of everyone?


Eight independent inquiries investigated "Climategate" and found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the scientists.

So, be more specific: what evidence do you have that scientists lied or hid evidence? Provide examples.

Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
The pro AGW has far more money at their disposable.


Scientists gain their funding for their research from various sources. 'Independent' means that the source itself doesn't benefit from the outcome of the research. Clearly, fossil fuel companies benefit when they fund researchers promulgating global warming denial.

Now, unless you can find conflicts of interest in thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrating that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, you're just making unsubstantiated assertions.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
There are loads of people who are against the idea that the climate is changing primarily due to the actions of man-kind and not other factors. Not many people agree that global warming hasn't happened.


And here we come, back the to beginning. I am going to say this and I will attempt to leave this conversation as we are getting nowhere.

There is a huge majority of scientists, (97% or not) who concur with the idea that man has directly influenced the climate in recent history. Yes, there will be those who disagree but they are in a minority.
Whether or not you disagree with the 97% is irrelevant. There is a majority that will continue to grow and hopefully this will mean that the effects of man made climate change will slow. And surprisingly, this will not end up with countries becoming North Korea.
Reply 36
Avatar for viddy9
viddy9
16
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Why hasn't there been any warming for 18 years then?
Why do the IPCC need to cover up and lie?


Do you have any evidence of the IPCC "covering up and lying"?

There has been warming. 2014 was the warmest year in the modern record. 2010 and 2005 are the second and third warmest years respectively. Decade on decade, temperatures have been increasing, with 10 out of the 11 warmest years on record having occurred since 2000.

There has been a slowdown in the increase of surface warming in the past 18 years. That's largely to do with the fact that you cherry-pick the 18 year period for a specific reason, whether you know it or not: using data from 1998 onwards is particularly egregious because the period between 1997-98 included an El Nino event, which caused temperatures to soar in 1998: it was the warmest year on record at the time. After such an unusually warm year in which temperatures were far above the mean, regression to the mean invariably occurred, causing it to superficially appear as if there was a ‘pause’.

You also fail to note what is happening to the temperatures in the oceans. More than 90% of the Earth's heat goes into the oceans.

Indeed, when we factor in the ocean temperature, global average temperatures are actually accelerating, as the warming of the oceans below 700 meters is, as recent studies have concluded, “unprecedented”. All of this evidence points to the likely possibility that the strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency is the cause of the slowing down of the warming of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, this was confirmed in a 2013 study by Watanabe et al.

In light of the evidence, the UK Met Office makes three conclusions:

First, periods of slowing down and pauses in surface warming are not unusual in the instrumental temperature record. Second, climate model simulations suggest that we can expect such a period of a decade or more to occur at least twice per century, due to internal variability alone. Third, recent research suggests that ocean heat re-arrangements, with a contribution from changes in top of the atmosphere radiation, could be important for explaining the recent pause in global surface warming.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Why hasn't there been any warming for 18 years then?
Why do the IPCC need to cover up and lie?


You have provided no source - but I think I know what you are referring to.

"Lord" Monkton first claimed that there was a pause in global warming (I say "Lord" because he wasn't actually a Lord and the real Lords had to ask him to stop saying he was...). Anyway - he was quite mis-leading when it came to his global warming figures... and his credentials, it seems.

There has been no pause. NASA, NCDC and the IPCC all show an increase in the year average temperature.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-releases-2013-global-climate-report
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/ipcc
Even if Global warming was real, it would not affect me in my lifetime. So I don't give a ****.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
Do you have any evidence of the IPCC "covering up and lying"?


It makes me laugh.

Those who deny climate change will be quick to attempt to discredit the various reports of an organisation. They will use the slightest thing... even if that thing amounts to nothing.

Yet, they will happily accept as their evidence the "reports" of some unknown and clearly biased individual.

It's like trying to argue with someone who thinks the Earth is flat.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you