Climate Change Pays a Visit to the Caribbean and Coral Reefs Suffer? Do you believe t

[DandyDon]

America Is Only Nation Where Climate Scientists Face Organized Harassment | InsideClimate News

 

[Mike]

Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure…

The LIE that : 97% of scientist agree that global warming is occurring and it is caused by humans.

or (how 79 scientist became 5.8 million)

Frequently in stories and congressional testimony we hear that 97% of the world’s scientists agreed that man is the driver of the climate and that the warming in unequivocal.

Apparently, the poll being referenced was one published in EOS on January 20, 2009. EOS is published by the American Geophysical Union and bills itself as: “The premier international newspaper of the Earth and space sciences, EOS seeks to forge strong interdisciplinary ties among geophysicists and place the important contributions of geophysics in the context of the social and policy-making arenas”.

The researchers sent an online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies, and generated responses from 3,146 people to the following questions.

Q 1. :When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Q 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Few who have studied climate change would object to the first. Certainly the earth is warmer than during the Little ice Age.

Most skeptics would object or disagree on the second. If one includes urbanization and land use changes such as deforestation and irrigation, certainly, man affects local even regional climate often in a significant way.

The researchers then boiled down the numbers to those who self identified themselves as those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total).

Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered ‘risen’ to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.

Thus, the touted 97% figure is based on the responses of 0.75% of those polled, just 77 to 79 scientists, certainly a minute fraction of 5.8 million scientists (AAAS). And the questions asked are ones even the most ardent skeptics may have answered yes.

Huh, go figure...

 

[archiebald]

My mask is silicon, did you really say snorkel? fins are rubber, and you got me on the rest, except that is not the issue I was trying to convey. It is what we do with them when we are done with them that matters. Plastic bags need to be banned etc. Read up on how our garbage has changed over the last 50 years and what it is mostly comprised of today. Feel free to read the link in my signature too.

Sure, the seal is silicon but how about the clips that secure the strap and the frame that surrounds the glass?

Yep, I did say snorkel, is there a problem?

Fins again may be based on rubber but various parts including strap mountings are commonly plastic.

Actually, I agree with you entirely - there is nothing wrong with plastics, our society would simply not function without them, but it is the education and mentality of people towards recycling and disposal that is the problem. The problem is that people tend to generalize and that weakens the arguement.

FWIW I am on the side of environmental protection. I find it hilarious and mystifying when some Americans claim that renewable energy is going to somehow cripple their country, so they need to go out and dig another oil well.

With a little forethought and minimal investment, the energy consumption of most developed countries can be drastically reduced with zero impact on daily life.

---------- Post Merged at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 11:13 AM ----------

Q 1. :When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Q 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Q1 - There is no need to think, there is more than enough factual data to prove beyond any doubt that this is true. Ice cores, tree growth etc all clearly indicate this, even to a non-scientist.

Q2 - There are many records of natural variation going back thousands of years. But the key fact is that the dramatic and sustained mean rise in temperatures of the last 150 years or so is exactly in line with the dawn of the Indutrial Revolution that started in the UK from 1750, finally spreading throughout the world about 100 years later. Again, this is something that doesn't or at least shouldn't need thinking about.

 

[Mike]

Again, this is something that doesn't or at least shouldn't need thinking about.

I know a country that elected a totally unqualified President and reaped the 2nd worst President in the history of the United States by following that exact methodology of not thinking about it. No thanks. The more somebody tells me don't worry about it, nothing to think about, the more I believe you better be thinking about it, and grabbing your back pocket because your wallet is probably missing too.

 

[archiebald]

To all the people on this thread who say they don't think man is having an effect on this planet, I would ask them one question.


Do you insure your house, your car, your life?

 

[DandyDon]

To all the people on this thread who say they don't think man is having an effect on this planet, I would ask them one question.

Do you insure your house, your car, your life?

While I agree with your thought, not so your logic. You insure against natural threats too.

Now, anyone who refuses to accept that mankind has greatly affected nature, in particular global warming from our greenhouse gases and environmental destruction - is just probably hopeless, as the evidence is overwhelming. It's been proven, even tho some don't accept the proof.

 

[AfterDark]

To all the people on this thread who say they don't think man is having an effect on this planet, I would ask them one question.


Do you insure your house, your car, your life?

Yes the bank requires it. What's your point?

---------- Post Merged at 01:50 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:46 AM ----------

I think this explains it:



So, humankind can do nothing that can counter the active work of God in the environment. If we do something he doesn't like, he does something to counter it.

That's great news. It means we can't possibly do anything wrong, because He will correct it when we do. Everything that happens is God's will. I guess that means that if I shoot my neighbor, it must also be God's will, since He would have stepped in to prevent it if it weren't. Logically, then, I should not be prosecuted, since I am acting as an instrument of God.

God gave us free will so anything we do is "his will" by extention. God doesn't step in here God sees but waits, the meeting will come soon enough for God.

GW is Gods "will" too.

 

[archiebald]

Yes the bank requires it. What's your point?

Bank can't require anything if you don't owe them anything. But I digress.

Point is, even if you think that climate change is not affected by man, don't you think that hedging your bets and taking care of the environment for future generations is a generally good idea. You know a bit like the fact that you think nothing is going to happen to your house but you still insure it just to be on the safe side.


---------- Post Merged at 01:50 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:46 AM ----------

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

God gave us free will so anything we do is "his will" by extention. God doesn't step in here God sees but waits, the meeting will come soon enough for God.

GW is Gods "will" too.

It always mystifies me how someone who denies oceans of evidence about something they don't want to believe in will then turn around and attribute everything that exists ... everything they do ... to some entity who they have absolutely no evidence exists ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Rhone Man]

Good summary of the debate here:

Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I particularly liked this para, which seemed apt:

Global warming remains an issue of widespread political debate, sometimes split along party political lines, especially in the United States. Many of the largely settled scientific issues, such as the human responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them – a phenomenon widely known as climate change denial. The sources of funding for those involved with climate science – both supporting and opposing mainstream scientific positions – have been questioned by both sides. There are debates about the best policy responses to the science, their cost-effectiveness and their urgency. Climate scientists, especially in the US, have reported official and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their work and hide scientific data, with directives not to discuss the subject in public communications. Legal cases regarding global warming, its effects, and measures to reduce it, have reached American courts. The energy lobby, oil industry advocates and free market think tanks have often been accused of overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine or discredit the scientific consensus on global warming.

Also interesting is this article, and particularly the footnotes citing sources.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another extract for your benefit:

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.^[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

<snip>

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.^[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions. There are also groups of individuals outside national or international organizations that have expressed their dissenting opinions and counterarguments in venues such as public petitions.

But hey, people believe what they want to believe. We all know that.