Turn on thread page Beta

Climate change or economic change? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What is the evidence for so-called climate change in terms of consensus by the scientific communities? Is it a case of throwing pots of money at some scientists to find evidence (ie if it does not support our climate change do not research it).

    Is Climate Change really about a political agenda to move towards green economies?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Basically 99% of the scientific community supports climate change... people who doubt it are those who pick and choose what science to believe, which isn't how science works.

    But here's NASA's evidence for one.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No, most CC denialists with the money throwing ideas are conspiracy theoriests or are being paid by fossil fuel suppliers to promote denialism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Basically 99% of the scientific community supports climate change... people who doubt it are those who pick and choose what science to believe, which isn't how science works.

    But here's NASA's evidence for one.
    Actually incorrect. It's 97% who have an opinion think it is. Most scientists however deal with just facts.


    The climate is changing just as it always has since the dawn of time.

    We don't seem to be able to affect ivory predict stress concentrations in turbine blades, but magically climate change scientists seem to be confidentially predicting changes in a much, much , much more complex system......and they get it wrong quite a few times.

    The problem is it's become a political debate rather than a scientific debate not helped by the yoghurt knitters who scream and shout whenenever anybody questions them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    No, most CC denialists with the money throwing ideas are conspiracy theoriests or are being paid by fossil fuel suppliers to promote denialism.
    And most people supporting it get funding streams reliant on climate change being a thing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Actually incorrect. It's 97% who have an opinion think it is. Most scientists however deal with just facts.


    The climate is changing just as it always has since the dawn of time.

    We don't seem to be able to affect ivory predict stress concentrations in turbine blades, but magically climate change scientists seem to be confidentially predicting changes in a much, much , much more complex system......and they get it wrong quite a few times.

    The problem is it's become a political debate rather than a scientific debate not helped by the yoghurt knitters who scream and shout whenenever anybody questions them.
    I wasn't actually trying to use that as a fact - just trying to point out the ridiculousness of climate change denial (although I won't deny it came across as a fact )

    The climate changes naturally, but that's not the issue commonly referred to when we speak of climate change; the phrase 'climate change' in most cases refers to the colloquial meaning of man's affect on the climate (i.e. vastly speeding things up).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    And most people supporting it get funding streams reliant on climate change being a thing.
    The argument that climate change scientists need climate change for a job? Seriously? The majority, if not all, of these scientists would still have jobs - there would still be an environment to study and learn about. Not all science is done in the direct interest of human advancement - look at research into animal behaviour, for example.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Personally i support climate change in that i believe it exists and that humans probably play at least a 50% part in the warming seen.

    That said i'm in no hurry to support mass tax and spend on green initiatives given that while Africa may suffer horribly, the effects on the UK will be much muted and indeed in some respects (agriculture and leisure) there's potential for net gains.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    I wasn't actually trying to use that as a fact - just trying to point out the ridiculousness of climate change denial (although I won't deny it came across as a fact )

    The climate changes naturally, but that's not the issue commonly referred to when we speak of climate change; the phrase 'climate change' in most cases refers to the colloquial meaning of man's affect on the climate (i.e. vastly speeding things up).
    And thus the problem deepens. Take into account scientis believing that anthropological climate change is real and those who question the impact by man compared to natural variants and it becomes murky.

    Should we recycle, stop wasting resources and look after the planet? Yes.

    My concern is the anti globalised have hijacked this issue.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The scientific consensus is that mankinds activities are influencing global climates. Given how delicate these system are it doesn't take a lot for drastic change to occur.

    Slight change in ocean pH = species being less able to reproduce,

    Slight increase in temperature = more erratic weather, regional climates being less suitable for crops, more suitable for alien species.

    Day after tomorrow is a hollywood exaggeration, but little changes can have serious consequences that will impact us.

    More resources are thrown at trying to debunk it as fossil fuels are principle culprits, though by no means the only ones, and those industries are enormous however amazingly enough most scientists are more interested in being right than rich.

    Evidence includes monitoring global trends such as atmospheric green house gases and global temperature, decline in arctic sea ice, comparing these changes to historical ones (hint: its orders of magnitude faster).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    And most people supporting it get funding streams reliant on climate change being a thing.
    I don't think so. 99% of the scientific community consider anthropomorphic climate change to be real, but only a tiny fraction of them work in the field directly.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    As has been said, climate change has existed ever since we have had a climate, but a large chunk of the "evidence" is questionable for anthropogenic climate change, for example, the polar ice caps are receding so fast that they are growing, and there are allegations of manipulation of data to emphasise temperature changes that get ignored by most and quietly brushed under the carpet, with satellite data showing next to no climb in temperatures for nearly two decades. It's also alleged that the 97% figure is spurious, based on including a lot of irrelevant people and papers, and extreme weather events, outside of heatwaves, are increasing so fast that even the IPCC is forced to admit that there is no real evidence to support the idea that the frequency is increasing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Anthroprogenic global warming (AGW) is in other words defined as climate change caused by human beings. NASA had on their website that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is caused by human beings. However, when persons actually looked at the source, as MatureStudent36 states, it related to 97% of the scientists (and am sure they were varied as scientists - the question is, are or were they PHD geo scientists - the reasonable PHD Geo scientist standard), who held an opinion on the matter. NASA subsequently removed this 97% claim. Question, why? Question, why did NASA exaggerate the claim on its website?

    Is there any evidence that there is AGW consensus?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    The argument that climate change scientists need climate change for a job? Seriously? The majority, if not all, of these scientists would still have jobs - there would still be an environment to study and learn about. Not all science is done in the direct interest of human advancement - look at research into animal behaviour, for example.
    Nobody is going to put themselves out of a job. Climate research and associated technologies are a new industry with money to be made. It's a bit like any special interest group.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    "Ten Billion", according to Stephen Emmott, a worried looking man in general (who appeared to have the world on his shoulders) when presenting his TV programme with the same name on Sky Arts recently, is said to be the entire population that the this planet can cope with.

    This sounds a bit like the early 20th century Eugenics' movement (who likely went underground), whom had taken Darwin a little too literal, incidentally whose mentor was Thomas 'not enough food to go around' Malthus and cousin, Francis 'human factory' Galton (the man who looked for weaknesses in humans). Eugenics were simply high profile people in society but filled with poison ideas that have likely spread throughout the world. Eugenics simply hate weak (people born inferior, not of noble or worthy genes) people and would happily wipe them off the face of the earth. Whilst those former eugenic families from Europe and America ('fittest family' competition by IQ etc) have long since demised the poison that is eugenics has probably not. This is why I am so sceptical of experts and any such fear propaganda especially where humans are to blame.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    And thus the problem deepens. Take into account scientis believing that anthropological climate change is real and those who question the impact by man compared to natural variants and it becomes murky.

    Should we recycle, stop wasting resources and look after the planet? Yes.

    My concern is the anti globalised have hijacked this issue.
    It's probably quantifiable in some way, I haven't looked into it much though. There is no doubt that we're contributing in a statistically significant way to it, though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    It's probably quantifiable in some way, I haven't looked into it much though. There is no doubt that we're contributing in a statistically significant way to it, though.
    Somebody has no doubt tried to quantify it.

    In a little older than most on here so I've had 30 ish years of awareness of global warming.

    It started off as global warming, then that didn't really happen so it changed to AGW, then into climate change because we weren't warming.

    I've been told the North Pole would be be ice free ten years ago.

    Polar bears were being killed even though populations have grown.

    I've been told islands in the Pacific will sink but there's islands that have raised.

    The IPCC said one thing, changed their minds and when I question why they were wrong in the first place the believers tell me no such thing was ever originally said even though I remember the original press conferences.

    I remember when we were burning against fossil fuels because of the acid rain thy caused in Germany.

    It's the hypocrisy I don't like. The scream and shout and stamp your feet.

    There's three documentary a I'd recommend for anybody to make their mind up.

    An inconvenient truth.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

    The great global warming swindle.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg



    Pandora promise.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Promise


    One is a slick pro global warming documentary. One is a slick anti global warming documentary and one questions why if global warming is such a concern, environmentalists discount certain carbon free energy sources.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Somebody has no doubt tried to quantify it.

    In a little older than most on here so I've had 30 ish years of awareness of global warming.

    It started off as global warming, then that didn't really happen so it changed to AGW, then into climate change because we weren't warming.

    I've been told the North Pole would be be ice free ten years ago.

    Polar bears were being killed even though populations have grown.

    I've been told islands in the Pacific will sink but there's islands that have raised.

    The IPCC said one thing, changed their minds and when I question why they were wrong in the first place the believers tell me no such thing was ever originally said even though I remember the original press conferences.

    I remember when we were burning against fossil fuels because of the acid rain thy caused in Germany.

    It's the hypocrisy I don't like. The scream and shout and stamp your feet.

    There's three documentary a I'd recommend for anybody to make their mind up.

    An inconvenient truth.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

    The great global warming swindle.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg



    Pandora promise.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Promise


    One is a slick pro global warming documentary. One is a slick anti global warming documentary and one questions why if global warming is such a concern, environmentalists discount certain carbon free energy sources.
    Interesting. A lot of that could (/will - although not all of it) be press misreporting, which is rife among the mainstream press when it comes to reporting science, especially those of medicine, biology and climate, and always has been. I've always been of the opinion that only someone of scientific training should write science articles, or should always at least be consulted. Scientific ignorance because of misreporting has always annoyed me.

    I've looked at from the biology POV, rather than the climatic POV, and the effect it (/we) has biologically is horrendous. Plus the output of modern industrial farming.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Interesting. I've looked at from the biology POV, rather than the climatic POV, and the effect it (/we) has biologically is horrendous. Plus the output of modern industrial farming.
    How so biologically? Have we done our usual and linked global warming to bad things that have happened?


    Out of interest . From a biological point of view is it all bad news? We know vegetation grows better.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    And thus the problem deepens. Take into account scientis believing that anthropological climate change is real and those who question the impact by man compared to natural variants and it becomes murky.

    Should we recycle, stop wasting resources and look after the planet? Yes.

    My concern is the anti globalised have hijacked this issue.
    Anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere can be see at its most basic level. We know Co2 and other gases retain long wavelength infrared radiation and heats the planet. If it were not so, average Earth temperature would be -40 and there is no way surface temperatures on Venus would be +400 Celsius.

    So we know that Co2 heats planets.

    There is pretty solid evidence that co2 entering the atmosphere is not being removed quickly enough. If we think in an annual cycle, then every year roughly half the previous year's CO2 load is still there. That remaining CO2 load gets added ot this years or which half of that will remain next year and so on.

    Also, the rates at which Co2 are currently increasing are 1000% higher than any rate of change in the past 800,000 years. Atmospheric Co2 is rising at somthing like 2.1ppm per year!

    That's a crazy rate of increase. Infact, if you plot co2 for the last 1,000,000 years it appears as a vertical line straight up. All you have to do is go out of your house and see artificial carbon release absolutely everywhere.

    I'd place anyone that genuinely thinks climate researchers are lieing to cling onto reasearch funding firmly in the conspiracy nutjob camp.
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.