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.
I just was gonna say this too. I saw a VICE epi showing the video you were talking about. And it is a great analogy to their video proof of oil companies making same denial about global warming.
I actually don't care about global warming or even think it's true but this particular VICE episode use a VERY viable analogy that made me a believer that global warming indeed is real.
And I really think it's high time for people to search Tesla's free energy that have been suppressed by same greedy oil and electric evil capitalists of that time.
It's time to utilize the free energy we always have.
If only it wasn't Tesla as I think he is a scam artist. Time will tell on him
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
I've always thought that some of the most risky ingredients in cigarettes are probably all the additives, preservatives, and possibly even the paper, but not really the tobacco. Maybe their scientists had something valid to say after all.
Maybe so but regardless of what it is in the cigarette or chewing tobacco. It is bad for us.
Since the results are not verifiable, there is no way to know how many signers have actually earned a degree.
Do '31,000 scientists say global warming is not real'? Maybe. But more importantly what is the significance of these signatures? The majority of signatures are engineers (10,102). 3,046 are in medicine. 2,965 are in biology, biochemistry and agriculture. 4,822 in chemistry and chemical engineering.
Without formal training in climate science the level of understanding remains unknown among those that signed the petition. A key question is not how many of those that signed the petition know climate exists, but rather how many of those that signed work directly in the field of climate science
To make the link even more of a joke=
Quote:
To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not.
I'd say 31000 rightwing anti GWers signed the petition.
The vacuous thought process the rightwing uses never ceases to astound.
Not everyone is convinced that human beings are a reason the there is a warming trend on planet earth. We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Wow. 31,000 Scientists think global warming isn't real. This is based off a petition where to participate "one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not.
This shows the ignorance of the Republican Right Wing Party. It isn't even a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in any sort of scientific field. I mean a Ph.D. in religious studies carries way more weight than a B.S. or even a B.S. in Meterology or Climate science or Physics, etc.
Being able to check a box stating you are a scientist does not make you one. It at mosts demonstrates a 3rd or 4th grade reading comprehention as well as crude motor skills to check the box.
Here are some simple Facts. (the first one is from the article the OP provided)
1 - 97% of working climate scientists say the temperature is rising, and human activity is a significant contributing factor. 83% believe man is directly the cause or significantly contributing to the cause.
2 - All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. The year 2015 was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7 (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
3 - The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8 (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) For the people who clicked scientist but have a degree in basket weaving, this is the most scary. This indicates a huge heating of the earth as 2/3rds of the earth is water and acts as our buffer durring extremely hot or cold seasons. (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
4. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005
5. The "Hockeystick" or reversal of global warming that started around the year 2000. Statistical anomaly. Here is the data:
6. Go to NASA's Global Climate Change Change site https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/. Scroll down and simply look at the change from 1884 until today.
7. For the deniers that state that Volcanos produce so much more greenhouse gasses than man ever could, simply look at Nasa's site showing basically the greenhouse gasses from 0 A.D. to 1950 and then 2006 to 2016. You can see the fluxuations all the way up to 1950. and how about 300 parts per million was the max and then how in 2006 it has started to rise well beyond the earth's rate to decrease temperature. (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/)
I'm going to stop here because none of this will change the denyer's positions.
The facts are the climate is changing and Chanaging fast. The only "facts" offered against Climate change are the ones by scientists hirered by the fossil fuel industry.
While I am not supporting the OPs article at all, I think it is funny how people point out that 97% of "climate scientists" accept a human impact on climate.
These are the people whose career is based on studying the impact. They certainly are not going to say the impact does not exist. That woudl be like scientists who study black holes saying black holes do not really exist. In other words, to be a "climate scientist" you have to already accept human impact on climate or you will not be deemed a climate scientist. What is odd is where the missing 3% comes from.
There may be better statistics to support the position, but that one carries no weight with me. I would bet that close to 100% of the people who study purple unicorns for a living, also believe they exist.
Thus, this is neither support for nor against the proposition, but really a meaningless statistic. I am far more interested in the logic and validity of the data behind their conclusions than a numbers statistic. At one time 97% of medical practitioners in England believed bleeding people made them well.
WRONG. Climate "change" has existed since the beginning of the earth. Scientists study climate change that has occurred for the past BILLION years where there is some kind of geologic record. Yeah, that's well before humans or much of any kind of life was on the scene. To say climatologists are only interested in climate change for the last few million years when humans could have had any impact is ignorant of the much longer history of change being studied.
Yeah...I'm a historian who only cares about history since the '90's....that's kinda what you're saying.
WRONG. Climate "change" has existed since the beginning of the earth. Scientists study climate change that has occurred for the past BILLION years where there is some kind of geologic record. Yeah, that's well before humans or much of any kind of life was on the scene. To say climatologists are only interested in climate change for the last few million years when humans could have had any impact is ignorant of the much longer history of change being studied.
Yeah...I'm a historian who only cares about history since the '90's....that's kinda what you're saying.
I think you are missing the point which is not whether the Earth has gone through climate change in the past but if mans use of 100 million barrels of fossil fuels per day has created an abnormal spike in the Earths climate, almost all scientists involved with weather and climate studies say we have created an abnormal spike in the natural climatic cycle as a result they predict weather extremes around the globe.
While I am not supporting the OPs article at all, I think it is funny how people point out that 97% of "climate scientists" accept a human impact on climate.
These are the people whose career is based on studying the impact. They certainly are not going to say the impact does not exist. That would be like scientists who study black holes saying black holes do not really exist. In other words, to be a "climate scientist" you have to already accept human impact on climate or you will not be deemed a climate scientist. What is odd is where the missing 3% comes from.
There may be better statistics to support the position, but that one carries no weight with me. I would bet that close to 100% of the people who study purple unicorns for a living, also believe they exist.
Thus, this is neither support for nor against the proposition, but really a meaningless statistic. I am far more interested in the logic and validity of the data behind their conclusions than a numbers statistic. At one time 97% of medical practitioners in England believed bleeding people made them well.
Actually Coldjensens there is almost never 100% scientific consensus even on well known theories such as relativity or evolution. Many reject information in front of them all the time. 1) For example, during the launch of the first GPS satellite, there were rocket scientists that had been involved with the program since its inception, yet they they did not believe in relativity. They really put their foot down and would not agree to modify the code for the fact that the atomic clocks in the satellites are changing constantly due to their acceleration (not in speed but in vector due to the earth's gravity) nor would they compensate for the slight gravity difference between the atomic clock on earth and the clock in the satellite due to the distance. To satisfy them, they actually launched with two sets of code; one with corrections for relativity and one without. Fortunately relativity back then was a well understood theory and allowed us to have the super accurate system we have today.
Another example was a college biology teacher not believing in evolution but in creationism. This one has even more diversity with a larger number of evolutionary scientists believing in creationism. The values vary quite a bit but are around 95% of biologists and physicists believe in Evolution with 5% believing in creationism. But when we open it up to all scientists, the number drops to about 65-70%
Anyway, back on point. A great many of the scientists that do not believe in Global warming or Climate Change work in think tanks sponsored by the Oil and Gas companies. Some examples are: the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the U.K.
You can sum up climate change very easily.
- Yes it is happening, slowly, buy not so slowly that in a single person's lifetime they will not notice it;
- The warmer it gets the more violent the storms creating more powerful front systems that cause much more powerful storms creating hotter summers, less rain in traditional areas we have seen rain for the past 40-50 years Also these super-fronts can create huge winter storms as well freezing areas that do not traditionally freeze
- While there are a number of normal of natural causes, humans are increasingly becoming more and more of a significant cause because of our production of greenhouse gasses.
- While we cannot change the purely natural causes of climate change, we do have the ability to minimize human impact to the point where we could literally start a reversal of the climate change.
- It will be difficult as fossil fuels are still the cheapest energy around. Using renewable clean energy will be more expensive in the short term.... but less expensive in the long term as we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.
- Jobs will be loss due to the decrease and loss of needed coal and Oil. That sucks. In many parts of the US, Coal mining is basically what keeps some medium and small towns afloat. Remove the Coal jobs and all the support jobs go away as well.
- And there lies the problem. Jobs and wages. The future of the U.S. lies in Renewable Energy as our main source, but we will need a backup of coal plants.
- We need to provide for the families that have provided generations of power to the U.S. through Coal, Oil, Refineries, etc. These people have worked hard and long to provide for their families and do not deserve to be given the shaft (so to speak). I'm not sure how this should be done, but it needs to be done on orders of magnitude higher than anything that has been suggested in the past.
While I am not supporting the OPs article at all, I think it is funny how people point out that 97% of "climate scientists" accept a human impact on climate.
These are the people whose career is based on studying the impact. They certainly are not going to say the impact does not exist. That woudl be like scientists who study black holes saying black holes do not really exist. In other words, to be a "climate scientist" you have to already accept human impact on climate or you will not be deemed a climate scientist. What is odd is where the missing 3% comes from.
There may be better statistics to support the position, but that one carries no weight with me. I would bet that close to 100% of the people who study purple unicorns for a living, also believe they exist.
Thus, this is neither support for nor against the proposition, but really a meaningless statistic. I am far more interested in the logic and validity of the data behind their conclusions than a numbers statistic. At one time 97% of medical practitioners in England believed bleeding people made them well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
WRONG. Climate "change" has existed since the beginning of the earth. Scientists study climate change that has occurred for the past BILLION years where there is some kind of geologic record. Yeah, that's well before humans or much of any kind of life was on the scene. To say climatologists are only interested in climate change for the last few million years when humans could have had any impact is ignorant of the much longer history of change being studied.
Yeah...I'm a historian who only cares about history since the '90's....that's kinda what you're saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101
I think you are missing the point which is not whether the Earth has gone through climate change in the past but if mans use of 100 million barrels of fossil fuels per day has created an abnormal spike in the Earths climate, almost all scientists involved with weather and climate studies say we have created an abnormal spike in the natural climatic cycle as a result they predict weather extremes around the globe.
Uhm no. I'm not missing that point at all....in fact I'm making the point that climatologists are not intrinsically biased as Coldjensons seems to think - that is because climatologists look at such a broad range of time such that humans COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD when change has been occurring. To me it is therefore MORE believable when they attribute the current change to humans - this change is far more abrupt than anything seen in the past where it could only have been due to natural variation.
Not everyone is convinced that human beings are a reason the there is a warming trend on planet earth. We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
The second sentence you quote (The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.) is patently untrue. The exact opposite is true.
So, can you explain why you would want to promulgate an untruth? What's in this for you? Are you part of the fossil fuel industry who profits off oil and gas?
Why would you want to deny what is happening before our eyes? Why on earth would you want to side with people who don't believe what NASA and NOAA are saying?
Please explain what drives you to believe such things....
WRONG. Climate "change" has existed since the beginning of the earth. Scientists study climate change that has occurred for the past BILLION years where there is some kind of geologic record. Yeah, that's well before humans or much of any kind of life was on the scene. To say climatologists are only interested in climate change for the last few million years when humans could have had any impact is ignorant of the much longer history of change being studied.
Yeah...I'm a historian who only cares about history since the '90's....that's kinda what you're saying.
Agree. Moreover, a "climate scientist" is going to have a purpose as long as the climate merits study - i.e. as long as it keeps changing. I don't see how their conclusions would have any affect on their job. And for a scientist, there's no final conclusion, anyway: they keep working and studying to see if the data that formed their conclusions to that point have shifted, to see what methods might alleviate whatever the problem is, etc.
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.
