Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tim Ball is a geographer not a climate scientist. He is employed by a climate change denier organization.
Dr. Ball's research was in climatology. The role of geography is central to climate science and must be included in any intelligent appraisal of the matter. The info in his article is true, regardless of his training or source of income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie
I dont see that environment needs saving. Imho, its fine. The air and water are generally much cleaner than when I was a kid, 60 years ago.
Fair enough. You're quite right, of course. I simply accepted the doctor's explanation of passive smoking. As far as I know, my mother was not exposed for any time to the things you mentioned. However, I can't prove it .Therefore, I may not reasonably use my mother's example in any serious discussion. Unfortunately, it's hearsay..
My dad died of lung cancer. He quit smoking back in the mid 80s. While his smoking may have contributed to his cancer, his life was filled with other things that were just as bad or worse than smoking. He did construction work in the early 60s which exposed him to asbestos and other contaminants, he served on the flightdeck of an aircraft carrier in Vietnam exposing him to Agent Orange and other contaminants, he drove 18 wheelers in the early 70s, he worked on offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico in the 1980s, and in his later years he worked in his woodworking shop as his hobby away from work and into retirement.
It's sad that so many will ignore the 99% of scientists and say that it's a conspiracy of some sort. If you don't believe there's a problem and not interested in doing anything positive for the environment, then I have to wonder why you're commenting in the "Green Living" section.
Good to see your posts on the other threads-- you seem to be "walking the walk" and not just "talking the talk" of environmental concern.
BUT-- this "99%" thing was discredited yrs ago. The history of the "fact"-- some young lady in a Master's program in journalism or economics or something unrelated to ecology or climatology sent a questionnaire to 10,000 (!!) scientists active in climate research asking about their beliefs about co2 / AGW...Only ~1000 of them bothered to fil lit out and return it in the postage-paid envelop. They, of course were mostly the activists so self- righteously indignant feeling obligated to publicize their outrage over GW. 90% of them thought GW was due to human activity...So, 90% of 10% is 9%, not 99%.
Several studies have been published analyzing the conclusions of the many research papers on global climate. They found, in round numbers, that a full 1/2 formed no opinion about the role of co2 or of men; 1/4 thought co2 was not a major factor; the remaining 1/4 thought co2 was a major factor, but not all of them thought men were responsible.
I post here and seem to be the curmudgeon because I sees so much naivete (polite word for ignorance) on subjects in ecology and wasted energy and effort on things that serve a political purpose but no make no difference to MotherEarth. So many brag of their pathetic efforts to have smaller carbon footprints and limit trash production simply to gain approval-- virtue signaling. They don't realize that those efforts are not only meaningless in th e great scheme of things, but are often counter-productive. (Eg- plastic meant for re-cycling winds up in the ocean garbage patch and increased atm co2 means the greening of the planet and more biodiversity.)
Good to see your posts on the other threads-- you seem to be "walking the walk" and not just "talking the talk" of environmental concern.
BUT-- this "99%" thing was discredited yrs ago. The history of the "fact"-- some young lady in a Master's program in journalism or economics or something unrelated to ecology or climatology sent a questionnaire to 10,000 (!!) scientists active in climate research asking about their beliefs about co2 / AGW...Only ~1000 of them bothered to fil lit out and return it in the postage-paid envelop. They, of course were mostly the activists so self- righteously indignant feeling obligated to publicize their outrage over GW. 90% of them thought GW was due to human activity...So, 90% of 10% is 9%, not 99%.
Several studies have been published analyzing the conclusions of the many research papers on global climate. They found, in round numbers, that a full 1/2 formed no opinion about the role of co2 or of men; 1/4 thought co2 was not a major factor; the remaining 1/4 thought co2 was a major factor, but not all of them thought men were responsible.
I post here and seem to be the curmudgeon because I sees so much naivete (polite word for ignorance) on subjects in ecology and wasted energy and effort on things that serve a political purpose but no make no difference to MotherEarth. So many brag of their pathetic efforts to have smaller carbon footprints and limit trash production simply to gain approval-- virtue signaling. They don't realize that those efforts are not only meaningless in th e great scheme of things, but are often counter-productive. (Eg- plastic meant for re-cycling winds up in the ocean garbage patch and increased atm co2 means the greening of the planet and more biodiversity.)
Kinda stunning isn't it. Man made climate change is proved and accepted science. There is no debate, just as say with evolution. Yes, some people insist on trying. Heaven forfend they make a serious effort to become informed.
I began reading, and was convinced by the science of man made global warming in the early 198o's--the science isn't especially complicated, and I had it explained to me, by a brilliant friend.
Anti sci science and anti intellectual positions are to be found in the insecure, the wilfully ignorant and those with very modest IQ's. Contra beliefs threaten religious doctrines and their world view, so cannot be tolerated. imo, the vocal opposition is based in fear, so very hard to change.
Science is never "settled." As soon as you hear someone say it is, you KNOW they aren't scientists, they are priests. Only religion demands complete faith in the ideology.
I dont see that environment needs saving. Imho, its fine. The air and water are generally much cleaner than when I was a kid, 60 years ago.
While humans made great strides in cleaning up their mess, apparently these groups are about power, they are not happy unless people give up all modern inventions and go back to the stone ages. Proposals are getting more ridiculous by the year and defies common sense. The sad thing is more and more politicians are acting like a bunch of brainwashed, trend obsessed youth these days.
Interestingly I see many posts about smoking. Apparently for some reason this is overlooked severely as an environment issue as opposed to a public health issue. Though in reality discarded smoke products are pretty toxic and accounts the highest percentage of litter. Interestingly despite the yearly decline in tobacco products being used, as there are much more ways to gain that crave for nicotine these days. Not to mention smoking of any product adds to air pollution.
Should smoking anything regardless of type of plant being smoked be banned during "spare the air days" or "high air pollution days?"
There are really much much better and more sensible ways to improve our environment than what they are proposing which I mentioned. Apparently newspaper companies get special treatment as their plastic bags are always exempt from bag ordinances in pretty much everywhere its passed. Newspaper companies could deliver all the way to the door or at least put the paper into a waterproof box instead of throwing it where rain gutter runoff or sprinklers would flood it.
The recent Cook et al (2013) began with the broadest possible ‘consensus’ definition – rendering the idea of ‘consensus’ meaningless. Only 0.54% (or 64 scientists) explicitly agreed. Though Cook’s graphics on The Consensus Project website focus on fossil fuels, his study used the 1996 Houghton declaration which includes other human factors like agriculture and land-use change.
Some 7983 scientists or 67% of the ~12,000 papers in the Cook study had no position on climate change. Many scientists publicly denounced Cook for wrongly assessing their work as supporting AGW when it does not."
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
??? 11,000+ papers and only ~4000 took a position on the subject . How does that translate to 97% consensus?....One must read critically, questioning & verfying all data and statements. Even without knowing any other facts, it's easy to deduce that something is amiss here.
If you torture the data hard enough, you can get them to confess to anything.
Science is never "settled." As soon as you hear someone say it is, you KNOW they aren't scientists, they are priests. Only religion demands complete faith in the ideology.
Scientists avoid absolute claims. So a thing may not reasonably ever be claimed to be 100% true. Scientific claims are made with the implicit caveat "based on what we know"
Yet we accept say the laws of thermodynamics, evolution, gravity and, the principles of internal combustion as true in any practical sense.
So it is with man caused global warming. We know it to be true ,based on the evidence we have, which is overwhelming.
To attempt to dismiss man caused global warming on the basis that nothing is ever 100% settled in science is sophistry.. That claim suggests the writer is either ignorant of scientific method, and the basis for a scientific theory, or is simply being disingenuous.
In the final analysis, I really don't care about the opinions of the uninformed or wilfully ignorant.As an individual, I can make no difference regardless. I am about as prepared as I can be at this point.Oh, I will be putting in rainwater tanks as soon as I can afford them,.-South Australia is the driest state on the driest continent ,and it's already getting hotter ,and drier. ---Still hoping I'll be dead before the issue becomes really inconvenient.
The time is coming when people will be less concerned with the cause, and more concerned with the effects.
(2) The full discussion, taken from "Q&A" an Oz panel show on public broadcasting. This is in debate form, before a live audience. For the information of anyone interested
Brian Edward Cox OBE, FRS (born 3 March 1968) is an English physicist who serves as professor of particle physics in the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Manchester.[2][3] He is best known to the public as the presenter of science programmes, especially the Wonders of... series[4][5][6] and for popular science books, such as Why Does E=mc²? and The Quantum Universe. He has been the author or co-author of over 950 scientific publications.[7]
Last edited by c charlie; 04-18-2019 at 06:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
George Carlin's take in the subject: 
