Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[aintforever]

This is alarmist claptrap. If the world were that unstable it would have fried a long time ago. There are other explanations for the recent perceived increase.

 

Exactly what is claptrap?

[Whitey Grandad]

Exactly what is claptrap?

 

Almost everything that you might read on an Internet forum

[Sheaf Saint]

This is alarmist claptrap. If the world were that unstable it would have fried a long time ago. There are other explanations for the recent perceived increase.

 

There are other explanations for the huge increase in CO2 levels and a ten-fold rise in the rate of increase of the global mean surface temperature that, by pure coincidence, happen to have both occurred following the industrialisation of human society?

 

Go on then, please share them with us. Please point us in the direction of a credible scientific study that can explain such unprecedented changes to the Earth's atmosphere without taking into account human activity.

[Whitey Grandad]

There are other explanations for the huge increase in CO2 levels and a ten-fold rise in the rate of increase of the global mean surface temperature that, by pure coincidence, happen to have both occurred following the industrialisation of human society?

 

Go on then, please share them with us. Please point us in the direction of a credible scientific study that can explain such unprecedented changes to the Earth's atmosphere without taking into account human activity.

 

There is an argument that CO2 levels follow a rise in temperatures. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader because we're getting away from my contention that scientific opinion is not something that you can put to a vote.

[Sheaf Saint]

There is an argument that CO2 levels follow a rise in temperatures. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader because we're getting away from my contention that scientific opinion is not something that you can put to a vote.

 

So you're saying there is evidence to suggest that a rise in global temperatures could be the cause of increased CO2 levels, rather than the result of it? Fascinating. I would be interested to read this research, if you could tell me who carried out the study and where their findings were published that would be great.

 

I agree with your second point. Scientific opinion is not something that can be put to a vote. No matter how bulletproof the evidence for a theory might be, it is still only a theory after all and can never be called 100% proof of anything. But then, by that token, gravity is only a theory isn't it; and you don't see many people jumping off bridges to try and disprove it.

[aintforever]

There is an argument that CO2 levels follow a rise in temperatures. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader because we're getting away from my contention that scientific opinion is not something that you can put to a vote.

 

That still doesn't explain the rise in temperature.

 

Why do you find it so hard to believe the outrageous theory that the CO2 levels are linked to us pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere. And that given that it is a scientific fact that CO2 absorbs more heat temperatures are likely to rise.

 

Your line of thought is bizarre, it's like p!ssing in the bath and blaming the increase of urine on the rising temperature of the water!

[Whitey Grandad]

That still doesn't explain the rise in temperature.

 

Why do you find it so hard to believe the outrageous theory that the CO2 levels are linked to us pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere. And that given that it is a scientific fact that CO2 absorbs more heat temperatures are likely to rise.

 

Your line of thought is bizarre, it's like p!ssing in the bath and blaming the increase of urine on the rising temperature of the water!

 

I'm not denying it, just the degree to which it affects the climate. There are other factors, such as solar high-energy activity (I'm not talking about solar irradiation) that are quite possibly/probably more significant and that also explain the variations in global temperatures over previous centuries.

 

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature.html

Some discussion here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Edited 4 August, 2013 by Whitey Grandad

[Deano6]

Why on earth can't you put it to the vote?

 

There are all sorts of very dubious sh!t put to the vote all the time - an expert's conclusions on credible data collected over a significant period of time would seem a much more sensible thing to take the measure of than most other things I see in polls in the papers these days.

[buctootim]

If the world were that unstable it would have fried a long time ago. There are other explanations for the recent perceived increase.

 

Why would it have fried long ago? The point you seem to be missing was that in the past there were just natural phenomenom affecting climate. Now we still have the natural forces, but also man pumping vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere whilst shutting off natural balances. The forces driving climate are now compounded and far stronger than before.

 

Added to the increased emissions, man has also highly restricted one of the principal natural regulators of climate - when you get higher CO2 levels you get more rapid vegetation growth, which in turn absorbs the CO2 and produces oxygen. Trees are best at this, especially tropical ones, grass and crops are poor. In the past higher CO2 would have meant growth of of vast forests of giant trees (made bigger by the CO2 available) which then absorbed the carbon and brought the system back into balance. Guess what? humans like trees for wood, especially big ones. We have cut down more than half the forests and replaced them with crops (which we harvest and plough in the chaff which rots and releases carbon). Besides the forests, the oceans provide half the global CO2 /oxygen exchange. Guess what? we have driven down fish stocks worldwide. Not only that but cold water produces more biomass than warm water (which gives more biodiversity but less yield) so as sea temperature rise then the yield falls and the oxygen / CO2 exchange is reduced.

 

Unless we get both a grip on emissions and control population growth we probably really are heading down the celestial poop chute very quickly. Its like the football chant at refs "you don't know what you're doing". We really dont. Its like drving fast blindfolded. Its doesnt guarantee a quick death, but it sure increases the chances.

 

The stupid part is that it isnt really a difficult problem to fix technically. LED TVs use less than 10% of the energy of CRT tvs. Well insulated homes and efficient boilers mean lower bills. Whats not to like?

Edited 4 August, 2013 by buctootim

[Verbal]

I'm not denying it, just the degree to which it affects the climate. There are other factors, such as solar high-energy activity (I'm not talking about solar irradiation) that are quite possibly/probably more significant and that also explain the variations in global temperatures over previous centuries.

 

Can you please list any papers published in refereed scientific journals which argue that these "other factors" are more significant as causes of the rise in global mean temperatures?

 

It's easy enough to find individual scientists who've made such claims, but they always seem to be what one might only politely call "dodgy". Professor Murry Salby, or example - often trotted out by deniers, but also sacked from his post at McQuarrie and banned from accessing National Science Foundation funds in the US for various dubious activities. The list of Salby-alikes among the scientific deniers is endless...

 

So one refereed article - that would be nice.

[aintforever]

I'm not denying it, just the degree to which it affects the climate. There are other factors, such as solar high-energy activity (I'm not talking about solar irradiation) that are quite possibly/probably more significant and that also explain the variations in global temperatures over previous centuries.

 

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature.html

Some discussion here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

One of those links basically says the opposite to what you are saying and the other just draws conclusions from the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere don't exactly match human output - of course they don't there are many other factors involved, mainly the oceans.

 

I would be interested to see your evidence of solar high-energy activity...

[buctootim]

I'm not denying it, just the degree to which it affects the climate. There are other factors, such as solar high-energy activity (I'm not talking about solar irradiation) that are quite possibly/probably more significant and that also explain the variations in global temperatures over previous centuries.

 

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature.html

Some discussion here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

C'mon Whitey. I thought you had a science background? All they've done is put up graphs showing a reduction in the rate of growth in CO2 levels in the past 10 years - um that'll be the global recession / slowdown methinks . If inflation falls from 5% to 1.5% it just means prices are going up more slowly.

[Whitey Grandad]

C'mon Whitey. I thought you had a science background? All they've done is put up graphs showing a reduction in the rate of growth in CO2 levels in the past 10 years - um that'll be the global recession / slowdown methinks . If inflation falls from 5% to 1.5% it just means prices are going up more slowly.

 

Indeed I do. I just put up a couple of examples to show that there is a debate on this. The comments are worth following up.

[Verbal]

Indeed I do. I just put up a couple of examples to show that there is a debate on this. The comments are worth following up.

 

Can you tell me in which refereed scientific journals this debate is happening? I have a university library log in so can go and fetch the abstracts.

 

Just trying to help along some sensible discussion, rather than the disreputable guff pedalled by dubiously financed "sceptics".

[Whitey Grandad]

One of those links basically says the opposite to what you are saying and the other just draws conclusions from the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere don't exactly match human output - of course they don't there are many other factors involved, mainly the oceans.

 

I would be interested to see your evidence of solar high-energy activity...

 

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

 

If you've got a spare few minutes the first ten or fifteen are worth watching:

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Why on earth can't you put it to the vote?

 

There are all sorts of very dubious sh!t put to the vote all the time - an expert's conclusions on credible data collected over a significant period of time would seem a much more sensible thing to take the measure of than most other things I see in polls in the papers these days.

 

Lets take a few monuments to think about this 'vote'. A figure of 97% is plucked out if the air. Who's going to vote? Is it a case of 'we asked 100 leading climate scientists and...'? Is it one man, one vote? What if one organisation has ten scientists and another only one, does the former have ten times the influence? Should it be a weighted vote, by money spent, time spent, reputation...? But more importantly, are the Chinese involved, because without them it's all rather pointless.

 

I maintain the pragmatic approach, if the climate is changing then we should be looking at ways to deal with it, not looking at who to blame.

[Whitey Grandad]

Why would it have fried long ago? The point you seem to be missing was that in the past there were just natural phenomenom affecting climate. Now we still have the natural forces, but also man pumping vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere whilst shutting off natural balances. The forces driving climate are now compounded and far stronger than before.

 

Added to the increased emissions, man has also highly restricted one of the principal natural regulators of climate - when you get higher CO2 levels you get more rapid vegetation growth, which in turn absorbs the CO2 and produces oxygen. Trees are best at this, especially tropical ones, grass and crops are poor. In the past higher CO2 would have meant growth of of vast forests of giant trees (made bigger by the CO2 available) which then absorbed the carbon and brought the system back into balance. Guess what? humans like trees for wood, especially big ones. We have cut down more than half the forests and replaced them with crops (which we harvest and plough in the chaff which rots and releases carbon). Besides the forests, the oceans provide half the global CO2 /oxygen exchange. Guess what? we have driven down fish stocks worldwide. Not only that but cold water produces more biomass than warm water (which gives more biodiversity but less yield) so as sea temperature rise then the yield falls and the oxygen / CO2 exchange is reduced.

 

Unless we get both a grip on emissions and control population growth we probably really are heading down the celestial poop chute very quickly. Its like the football chant at refs "you don't know what you're doing". We really dont. Its like drving fast blindfolded. Its doesnt guarantee a quick death, but it sure increases the chances.

 

The stupid part is that it isnt really a difficult problem to fix technically. LED TVs use less than 10% of the energy of CRT tvs. Well insulated homes and efficient boilers mean lower bills. Whats not to like?

 

The natural events that occurred previously far outweigh the influence of man. One big meteor strike, one or long-term volcanic event, for example

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps

 

CO2 is the finest natural fertiliser that exists so the increased levels in the atmosphere increase plant growth.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/deserts-are-greening-carbon-dioxide-fertilization-satellite-imagery-saw-arid-regions-bloom-photo

 

You will find arguments on both sides as to how significant this is. Let's not forget that if CO2 levels are reduced (some chance!) then crop yields will also suffer.

 

Replacing a CRT TV by an LED one will save some energy in their use but you also need to look at the energy used in their construction. And don't forget that during the winter the CRT TVs will also be heating the house so it's not all wasted.

[buctootim]

The natural events that occurred previously far outweigh the influence of man. One big meteor strike, one or long-term volcanic event, for example

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps

 

CO2 is the finest natural fertiliser that exists so the increased levels in the atmosphere increase plant growth.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/deserts-are-greening-carbon-dioxide-fertilization-satellite-imagery-saw-arid-regions-bloom-photo

 

You will find arguments on both sides as to how significant this is. Let's not forget that if CO2 levels are reduced (some chance!) then crop yields will also suffer.

 

Replacing a CRT TV by an LED one will save some energy in their use but you also need to look at the energy used in their construction. And don't forget that during the winter the CRT TVs will also be heating the house so it's not all wasted.

 

Thats an odd scattergun post that doesn't answer any of the substantive points Whitey.

 

Yes big natural disasters can wipe out whole species. No-one disagrees. Disasters can also be man made.

 

Yes higher CO2 levels promote plant growth. The problem, as I covered in my earlier post, is that human development is cutting down the forests and draining the bogs which are massive carbon sinks holding hundreds of years of emissions and replacing them with crops growing during the summer and taking up CO2 but the chaff and human poo rotting in the autumn and releasing the carbon again in the same year.

 

Embedded carbon in manufacture has become a whole new science and is well covered. Reading some of corporate disclosures here is informative. http://www.cdproject.net

 

The irony is that previous environmental problems have been fixed by international action. The banning of production of CFCs and halon is gradually fixing the ozone layer hole. Acid rain was fixed by putting nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide scrubbers on coal fired power plants - unless of course you are claiming that these two issues were naturally occurring fluctuations that were far too big for man to have any influence on. Our lives didn't change, despite some of the tabloid stories at the time. We still had aerosols and air conditioning in the car. I suspect that many people who were against action on these two issues are also anti action on climate change and attribute the fact that ozone layer hole and acid rain have 'gone away' to malign scientists jumping on the new climate change bandwagon - instead of the fact that despite the 'anti' lobbying, we came up with a technical fix and it didn't hurt at all.

Edited 4 August, 2013 by buctootim

[aintforever]

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

 

If you've got a spare few minutes the first ten or fifteen are worth watching:

 

 

Very week, definitely no evidence that cosmic rays are causing the planet to warm.

[Whitey Grandad]

Very week, definitely no evidence that cosmic rays are causing the planet to warm.

 

Have a look at the results of the experiment. I was particularly referencing the introduction which shows climate variations in historical times. Remember, this is a scientist who is seeking to justify funding for his research.

Edited 4 August, 2013 by Whitey Grandad

[hutch]

There are other explanations for the huge increase in CO2 levels and a ten-fold rise in the rate of increase of the global mean surface temperature that, by pure coincidence, happen to have both occurred following the industrialisation of human society?

 

Go on then, please share them with us. Please point us in the direction of a credible scientific study that can explain such unprecedented changes to the Earth's atmosphere without taking into account human activity.

Serious question, how can you say they are unprecedented?

[Whitey Grandad]

Serious question, how can you say they are unprecedented?

 

There are plenty of precedents which cannot be explained by human activity, or anything else for that matter.

[Sheaf Saint]

Serious question, how can you say they are unprecedented?

 

Unprecedented in the available data. Average temperatures can be determined to a good degree of accuracy using ice core samples. A study of these dating back over half a million years showed that the current rate of increase of global temperatures - 1.0 degrees per century and rising - did not occur at any point during that time period where the average rate of increase was just 0.1 degrees per year. Not even during the thawing from the last ice age did that rate of increase get anywhere near to the current figure.

[Minty]

It's not something you can take a vote on.

 

Just to clarify, as I've not been back since I posted the graphic, it is referring to peer-reviewed papers that give an opinion about the cause of climate change... 97% of papers that give an opinion, agree that current prevailing changes to climate are caused by humans.

[Jonnyboy]

Due to man or not there is absolutely nothing we can do that will change anything. The earth's weather is determined by forces far more powerful than anything we do. The climate will stabilise at a new status and we must adapt to it.

 

Ok, but the residents a chandlers ford better all chip in to help me out when the Itchen bursts it's banks.

[Whitey Grandad]

Ok, but the residents a chandlers ford better all chip in to help me out when the Itchen bursts it's banks.

 

I'm not completely daft, my house is 120ft above sea level.

[Jonnyboy]

I'm not completely daft, my house is 120ft above sea level.

 

You're alright then Jack.

[Whitey Grandad]

You're alright then Jack.

 

We all are.

[Deano6]

Lets take a few monuments to think about this 'vote'. A figure of 97% is plucked out if the air. Who's going to vote? Is it a case of 'we asked 100 leading climate scientists and...'? Is it one man, one vote? What if one organisation has ten scientists and another only one, does the former have ten times the influence? Should it be a weighted vote, by money spent, time spent, reputation...? But more importantly, are the Chinese involved, because without them it's all rather pointless.

 

I maintain the pragmatic approach, if the climate is changing then we should be looking at ways to deal with it, not looking at who to blame.

 

You not liking the result of this specific vote is very different from saying it cannot be put to a vote. Of course it can be put to a vote. If you don't like the results then make your own poll and publish the results. Don't blame the tool just because you don't like the outcome.

[Whitey Grandad]

You not liking the result of this specific vote is very different from saying it cannot be put to a vote. Of course it can be put to a vote. If you don't like the results then make your own poll and publish the results. Don't blame the tool just because you don't like the outcome.

 

I'm not saying I don't like it, just that it's meaningless. How many Chinese were involved? There are over 1,359,130,000 of them and they are the ones who would need to be convinced of the need to change.

[scotty]

This debate always irritates me, for the simple reason that I shouldn't actually give a flying f*ck. The planet will outlast me and my mrs, and we have no children. And to be honest, I'm not fond enough of any of my relatives to care much about what they have to deal with once we're finished f*cking up the planet for mankind. The people arguing that its all a myth are almost invariably parents, where the hell is the logic in that? Don't they care at all that the human species might, just might, be blighting their descendants lives? Don't they care about them? If I had kids I'd be fuming. Its obvious to anyone looking objectively at the situation that the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere may, at some point, lead to a horrific situation for the next generation, or their offspring. Practically every climate scientist seems to agree on this, why argue with scientists who spend their lives studying it? They don't even have to prove it for action to be necessary, just a fraction of a percent of probability is enough, and they've already shown that, in spades redoubled. FFS.

 

Rant over.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Let's say here in the UK we followed Caroline Lucas and the sandal wearers advise fully. Let's say that us and our wonderful EU partners did exactly what she said 100%. Does anyone seriously believe it'll make a blind bit of difference. We seem to be wasting a lot of money on **** all, and guess whose getting rich, climate change scientists and the green lobby. No wonder 98% of them agree, they don't want to kill the cash cow.

[PhilippineSaint]

is it not all down to the growth of McDonald's worldwide and the larger herds of cattle used to make the burgers?

 

 

As an aside to this you would have thought that the cost of good quality cuts of meat would have fallen as they must have a surplus of these due to only the dregs going into these tasteless patties

[Whitey Grandad]

is it not all down to the growth of McDonald's worldwide and the larger herds of cattle used to make the burgers?

 

 

As an aside to this you would have thought that the cost of good quality cuts of meat would have fallen as they must have a surplus of these due to only the dregs going into these tasteless patties

 

I blame them for everything. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a correlation between the number of McDonald's and the rise in global temperatures.

[hutch]

Unprecedented in the available data. Average temperatures can be determined to a good degree of accuracy using ice core samples. A study of these dating back over half a million years showed that the current rate of increase of global temperatures - 1.0 degrees per century and rising - did not occur at any point during that time period where the average rate of increase was just 0.1 degrees per year. Not even during the thawing from the last ice age did that rate of increase get anywhere near to the current figure.

That's better. Even half a million years is a miniscule snapshot of time in the context of the existence of the planet (roughly one ten-thousandth I think). We don't know if it's happened before, or if it has, why? Or what the outcome was.

[Minty]

That's better. Even half a million years is a miniscule snapshot of time in the context of the existence of the planet (roughly one ten-thousandth I think). We don't know if it's happened before, or if it has, why? Or what the outcome was.

About the same as everything else, ever then? We act on the best information available to us in EVERY aspect of life. So why not with this?

 

This intrigues me. In virtually every other aspect of life, we accept that we can only act on the data available to us, and that scientific consensus (usually not as clear cut as it is in this case too) is to be respected. So why, with regard to Climate Change, do some people insist that 'we don't know enough' and therefore shouldn't act at all?

 

I've said it before on this thread and elsewhere... a precautionary principle is just plain common sense in this case. The only reasons I see why people don't agree are usually, unfortunately, selfish ones.

 

Also, I'm all for scepticism... it is one of the bedrocks of scientific progress, to question what has gone before. It is absolutely correct that we challenge things - but it's the reasons WHY we challenge them that are important. People need to be utterly honest with themselves. I challenge stuff because I want to know more about it, and check if assertions are true, to minimise doubt and try to get to the absolute truth (as much as we physically can). Sadly, I think many people challenge things because they don't like what they hear and aren't prepared to believe what they hear.

 

One final point - no one WANTS climate change to be happening. Most normal people who believe it is a significant problem would absolutely LOVE for there to be clear proof that Humans are not contributing to it. I take no pleasure from engaging in debates like this to potentially highlight that, according to scientific consensus, it's generally bad news. Why would I? Even if you think that scientists are 'only in it for the money'(!), what's in it for me? It's because, IMO, there are clear, rational, evidenced-based facts that lead me to this conclusion, and therefore it is morally right that we, as a race, need to act to change that.

[hutch]

About the same as everything else, ever then? We act on the best information available to us in EVERY aspect of life. So why not with this?

 

This intrigues me. In virtually every other aspect of life, we accept that we can only act on the data available to us, and that scientific consensus (usually not as clear cut as it is in this case too) is to be respected. So why, with regard to Climate Change, do some people insist that 'we don't know enough' and therefore shouldn't act at all?

 

I've said it before on this thread and elsewhere... a precautionary principle is just plain common sense in this case. The only reasons I see why people don't agree are usually, unfortunately, selfish ones.

 

Also, I'm all for scepticism... it is one of the bedrocks of scientific progress, to question what has gone before. It is absolutely correct that we challenge things - but it's the reasons WHY we challenge them that are important. People need to be utterly honest with themselves. I challenge stuff because I want to know more about it, and check if assertions are true, to minimise doubt and try to get to the absolute truth (as much as we physically can). Sadly, I think many people challenge things because they don't like what they hear and aren't prepared to believe what they hear.

 

One final point - no one WANTS climate change to be happening. Most normal people who believe it is a significant problem would absolutely LOVE for there to be clear proof that Humans are not contributing to it. I take no pleasure from engaging in debates like this to potentially highlight that, according to scientific consensus, it's generally bad news. Why would I? Even if you think that scientists are 'only in it for the money'(!), what's in it for me? It's because, IMO, there are clear, rational, evidenced-based facts that lead me to this conclusion, and therefore it is morally right that we, as a race, need to act to change that.

I'm completely equivocal as far as global warming is concerned. Where I am most people have far more pressing things on their minds. I'm also pretty sure that we will destroy ourselves in some other way long before global warming becomes terminal

 

I just picked up on your point where you said the rate of rise in temperature was unprecedented, presumably to add some force to your argument, whereas in reality none of us knows whether it is unprecedented or not.

[Minty]

I'm completely equivocal as far as global warming is concerned. Where I am most people have far more pressing things on their minds. I'm also pretty sure that we will destroy ourselves in some other way long before global warming becomes terminal

Personally I agree, but I won't be making any assumptions and would rather do my bit for the things I know about, than tell my kids 'Yeah, sorry, we knew it was going pear-shaped, but didn't do anything about it, cos we assumed something else would happen first'.

 

I just picked up on your point where you said the rate of rise in temperature was unprecedented, presumably to add some force to your argument, whereas in reality none of us knows whether it is unprecedented or not.

Think that was Bexy m'lud.

[bridge too far]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/picture/2013/aug/06/polar-bear-climate-change-sea-ice

[scotty]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/picture/2013/aug/06/polar-bear-climate-change-sea-ice

 

[Deano6]

I'm not saying I don't like it, just that it's meaningless. How many Chinese were involved? There are over 1,359,130,000 of them and they are the ones who would need to be convinced of the need to change.

 

Yes, Chinese research papers were included in the study that found a 97% consensus in peer reviewed literature. Is there another argument you would like to try?

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=442

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes, Chinese research papers were included in the study that found a 97% consensus in peer reviewed literature. Is there another argument you would like to try?

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=442

 

Thanks for that. So I presume the result isn't weighted by population?

[Minty]

Thanks for that. So I presume the result isn't weighted by population?

I thought I made this quite clear earlier but perhaps not... 97% of peer-reviewed papers that express an opinion. Nothing to do with populations or voting. Peer-reviewed papers written by scientists across the world. And no weighting required. Just a simple % of all papers published.

 

There are people convicted of crimes based on more doubt than that.

[Whitey Grandad]

I thought I made this quite clear earlier but perhaps not... 97% of peer-reviewed papers that express an opinion. Nothing to do with populations or voting. Peer-reviewed papers written by scientists across the world. And no weighting required. Just a simple % of all papers published.

 

There are people convicted of crimes based on more doubt than that.

 

Oh I don't know, I would have thought 3% a reasonable doubt.

[Sheaf Saint]

Oh I don't know, I would have thought 3% a reasonable doubt.

 

As per my post #372, how about 0.17%?

[Whitey Grandad]

As I argued above, figures like this are meaningless. It's like weighing the available evidence on a pair of scales. I see that your author has been very rigorous in rejecting any arguments agains AGW and does have a book to promote. He even blames the 'gullible public'. We are debating the number of angels on a pinhead.

[Minty]

As I argued above, figures like this are meaningless. It's like weighing the available evidence on a pair of scales.

 

Sorry, I really don't see how, other than 'I said so'...?!

 

For starters, the papers are peer-reviewed. I'm certain you know what that means. So these are people and documents that know what they are talking about. Do you agree?

 

Secondly, of ALL the peer-reviewed papers that reach a conclusion (so not just handpicked examples, but ALL of them), 97% come to a conclusion that humans are responsible for the situation we face.

 

So, ignore the author, and look at the facts. Just what would have to happen for these results to actually mean something to you?

[TopGun]

It's pointless arguing with deniers as they deny that the weight of peer-reviewed science means anything. It's like saying 97% of scientists agreeing smoking is bad for you or 97% agreeing that drinking too much booze will shorten your life. The deniers will always say that 3% is significant enough for them to doubt it and anyway Auntie Elsie lived to 96 and she smoked 40 a day as well as drinking half a bottle of gin each day.

 

Such views are exacerbated by trolls like James Delingpole and Christopher Booker.

[hutch]

How many of these "peers" are of independent means, and how many have, or seek, outside funding?

 

How many of the outside funders are of independent means?

 

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that "man" is damaging the planet in a very bad way. But what the consequences are, or will be, I have no idea. But I certainly do not believe every piece of so-called independent scientific research that I see. But I do get sceptical about people that have to resort to statistics to underpin an argument. A proper valid argument should stand on it's own facts.

 

Why? I get involved in a lot of commercial dispute resolution in various Courts, and employ a lot of expert witnesses. I also examine and cross-examine a few. I know that if I have an opinion I want to make in Court, if I ask enough experts, I WILL find one that agrees with me. Same goes for finding one to disagree with my opponent's expert.

 

All I have to do is pay them.

[SaintRichmond]

Putting aside for one minute, all peoples views expressed;

 

For me, the main fact is the RATE at which Climate Change is happening, It IS increasing Big Time, and is escalating as time passes. it is much much faster than it was 200 years ago, and, pro rata, much faster than it was 100 years ago.

 

You can argue about WHAT is causing GW, but you cannot argue about the fact that it is happening.

 

FWIW, I think the people that say there is nothing to worry about are living in cloud cuckoo land

 

Having a "I'm not bothered, it won't affect my generation" is very selfish, because it will impact on their generations to come.

 

Unfortunately, before any significant action to combat GW can be put in place, we will have to wait foe the likes of China to go through their Industial Revolution phase, and that won't be someday soon.