If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Again on the man-made global warming 'consensus'.
Former Member
Posts: 1,875,648 The Mix Honorary Guru
A bunch of scientists have sent an open letter to the Secreatry General of the UN saying that we should be focussing on adapting to climate change rather than on CO2 emissions. No doubt those intent on believing the man-made global warming theory will say that these scientists are also in the employ of the big oil companies. Read it for yourself:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
0
Comments
That man-made climate change is a reality is something very few without an agenda to push doubt... and it is as certain as the fact that the Earth is far older than a few thousand years, or that we do not come from a single couple created by a deity in his image. Nor that it stops some people, a few them supposedly 'scientists', from claiming otherwise.
That letter is risible even to the eyes of non-scientific peeps. Nobody is denying climate has changed throughout the history of the planet. It is the SPEED at which it is changing due to man-made pollution that is a new factor, and which will have catastrophic consequences for the planet within our lifetime.
As far as I'm concerned anyone who still claims there is no such thing as man-made global warming should be put against a wall and shot. It's reached the point where is no longer a matter of opinion but a matter of survival. And I don't think we should put the survival of the planet's species (including our own) at risk simply because some cunts are too fucking selfish and greedy to change their ways a little.
Not a bit of it. Climate change and global warming are the modern day religion. (though as it doesn't call itself a religion, I'm With Stupid doesn't criticse it) Anyone who dares to criticise it is called a heretic or accused of having an agenda, as if those who believe in global warming don't have their own agenda. I can't seriously join the same side as lunatics like that.
Two mentions in as many minutes. Obsessed much?
This is a stupid debate to even have on here really. None of us are qualified to talk about it.
But my attitude is that since the vast majority of the scientific community support the view that climate change is to some degree man-made, we kinda have to take it seriously. We can't do and experiment based on the outcome that climate change isn't man-made, but we can do and experiment based on the outcome that climate change is man-made. If we do nothing, and it turns out the majority are correct, it would result in the whole planet being fucked up. Whereas if we do something, and it turns out we were wrong all along, it would result in some money being lost, as a smaller reliance on fossil fuels to generate our power. Boo hoo. We only have one planet. Even if there was a debate, it would still be sensible to err on the side of caution. The fact that those who don't support man-made climate change are in such a vast minority means that the plan of action should be obvious.
And planning on the assumption that climate change is man-made doesn't mean that we wouldn't also plan to adapt to it when it does happen. So I wonder why these scientists are so adamant about it? If anything, you'd think they'd support a reduction in reliance on fossil fuels, unless they had some sort of other agenda?
Whilst I'd tend to agree with your view that we're best treating climate change as man-made and trying to reduce our fossil fuels there is an argument against that.
Basically that argument goes is that it's too late to do anything and we'd be better preparing for the impacts. Any changes to non-fossil fuels are likely to be expensive and time consuming, and we'd be better off spending money on flood defences, shifting houses, moving roads from floodplains etc.
Much better to try to contain it and prevent further damage than to shrug our shoulders and say 'oh well, fuck it, nothing we can do, let's carry on driving 4x4s and wasting energy and start buying inflatable boats for later'.
That not only is a very unscientific approach, but also reeks of bollocks and it seems nothing more than another attempt by the pro fossil fuel lobby and the neocon brigades to carry on acting like greedy fuckwits.
Is that not based on the assumption that further use of fossil fuels wouldn't make it worse?
I'm not a scientist, but as I understand it argument basically is that we've already gone over the tipping point and that any further use of fossil fuels would have marginal impacts compared to irreversible changes already in place...
Possibly - though the argument also is that the West is now economically developed and is seeking to draw up the drawbridge against third world countries by forcing them to buy new technology, developed by the West, to cut their emmissions and that this money would be better spent elsewhere.
I don't see how we'll be able to function the way we do today if the earth's climate becomes stabilised. How, for example will agriculture work and how will we feed our people? It has only been for a small period of time, considering how long humans have been on the planet that the weather has been predictable enough to farm.
I don't see how we can also afford to keep on helping people who are experiencing the natural disasters as they'll become more frequent, if again the planet goes the way people say it will.
Also, whilst species disappear the fragile balance of biodiversity in our oceans will start to disappear too.
Basically, if we allow our climate to destabilise then we're fucked. Even by a couple of degrees celsius, that is a BIG change globally. I am not a scientist and even I have the common sense that it is wiser to deal with it now than leave things until they're too late.
It just isn't realistic to 'adapt' to the world we could be heading for in my view, obviously depending on how bad things get. We live in a state of symbiosis with the planet and it's time we started to understand this.
No it isn't because it is not religious fundamentalists who are saying that it is at best unclear whether current climate change is man-made, it is scientists themselves. The line that there is a scientific 'consensus' is thrown around as if it is an unchallengeable shibboleth and I don't buy it.
I suspect most people who claim they 'don't buy it' do in fact know deep down it is very real, but can't bring themselves to admit they only reason they claim different is because their political beliefs and/or selfishness overrides their common sense.
By that definition, then it's not "proven" that smoking causes lung cancer either. A vast minority of scientists are still dubious about this widely accepted fact too.
Couldn't we do both?
Right, right, as oppose to Al Gore's film, which by the way, has also been discredited as a veritable bit of pseudo-scientific gobbledegook aimed at credulous cretins. But you won't have read anything about that. 'Reputable scientists' don't use unreliable means to measure global temperatures, and they don't apply 'corrections' to the data they find in order to support their theory. They don't add postscripts to their own studies saying they still believe in the man-made global warming theory when their own data suggests that it is nonsense.
People like you 'know deep down' that it is true. Sceptics actually look at all the evidence before making their minds up.
The two aren't really comparable. Climate change science involves far more unknowns. Also, I assume the percentage of scientists who agree smoking leads to lung cancer do make up a 'consensus', and those who disagree are in the minority. The scientists who claim that global warming is man-made can by no stretch of the word be said to make up a 'consensus'. Studies I know of which have tried to claim this (i'm thinking of the one done by Nancy Oreskes) have been debunked.
Plenty of evidence and time for sceptics to 'make their minds up'. But they won't. Because it's not a question of scepticism or reasonable doubt. It's a question of political leanings, selfishness and greed.
Nancy Oreskes the social scientist? There is not a consensus as far as the degree to which man is responsible. There is a consensus that man is responsible at least to some degree though. Don't confuse the two. And those who disagree are in the minority. People with an agenda to push are very good at using the scientific process to suggest that the debate is still continuing, when in fact what is still being debated is small details of a particular theory, not the theory itself. You seem to be claiming that there is a genuine 50/50 debate on this issue. So come on, give us a rough estimate of the percentage of climatologists who believe that man is in no way responsible for the change in global temperature.
Well as we have limited resources we'd end up doing both not very well... Ot drop other things such as health, education, housing, social security...
Personally I still think that climate change isn't irreversible, but I can see where the argument comes from.
Well a Dr Klaus-Martin Schulte did an update on Oreskes' research into papers on climate change from 1993-2003. His focussed on papers from 2004-7 and this time he found that 6% of the papers rejected the 'consensus' view that man is having atleast some impact on climate change. 45% implicitly supported it and 48% were neutral. I wouldn't call that a 'consensus'. http://www.dailytech.com/Survey%2BLess%2BThan%2BHalf%2Bof%2Ball%2BPublished%2BScientists%2BEndorse%2BGlobal%2BWarming%2BTheory/article8641.htm
Well that research isn't peer-reviewed, as as far as I can tell, is unpublished so far. It was going to be published in Energy and Environment, but after it was leaked onto the internet, and the editor read the research, she claimed that it was "patchy" and "contained nothing new."
You can read a more detailed criticism of the parts leaked to the internet here.
But since it's unpublished, and not reviewed, it really is irresponsible of the media (in particular, Conservative organisation The Science and Public Policy Institute - better known as the Against Anything that Hurts Big Business Institute) to be hailing this as "proof" that there is no consensus. But just on the samples given, two of the papers he cites aren't even scientific research papers, merely papers investigating the public opinion of climate change. Bear in mind that the last paper to attempt something similar (Dr. Benny Peiser, whom Dr. Schulte is accused of basically ripping most of his paper from, and being the reason why it wasn't published in the Energy and Environment journal) started out by claiming that 34 papers rejected man-made climate change, until the climate scientists looked at it, and then he had to correct it to 1 paper rejecting man-made climate change.