Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

lumeer said:
The number is in that paper. 75 of the 77 climate scientists expressed the view that humans are changing the climate. And in one of your earlier posts, you *did* dispute that there's a net change in temperature.
Click to expand...
No its not. My browser find also works perfectly fine.

lumeer said:
First, experts do know best, that's why they're called experts. Second, it's not appeal to authority when one cites mainstream scientific thinking.

Tell me, what's your background in climate science? Read a few blogs and watched a few YouTube videos, have we? Saw Tucker Carlson interview a climate change denialist and thought, "well that makes sense", have we?

PhD scientists generally have high IQs and they are formally well-educated in their fields. Don't you think that any flaw that you think you might have spotted in the science, has already been asked and answered by these high IQ well-educated scientists. Aren't you being a bit narcissistic in dismissing a highly complex and technically advanced science just because you think it has flaws, rather than considering that perhaps it is you who is the one who just has his facts mixed up?
Click to expand...
It's an appeal to authority when you use it to try and show one side of the debate as absolutely correct based on their credentials. You're still assuming that there's only side of science. So I ask you again what about all the others? Do you think they're just laymen sitting by the side? That is certainly not the case. What you're essentially arguing here is who's penis is bigger. It's not a line of questioning that exists in scientific circles. In fact it's more reminiscent of the fanatics you get around any subject. The fact of the matter is all science can contain flaws or incorrect conclusions. That's why we have peer review. Pro-CC science regularly gets shown just how flawed it is.

lumeer said:
Can it not be argued that it is the fault of the denialists that the mainstream have become cult-like on the issue of climate change? Urgent and decisive action is needed to prevent a catastrophe and the denialists are hindering this much-needed action, hence why the mainstream have become radicalised on the issue. The medical mainstream are similarly cult-like on the issue of child vaccination, because the stakes are so high.
Click to expand...
It's still cult behaviour no matter how you spin it. They are supposed to set the standard. What's more is that by doing so all the other possibilities are thrown out the window. It doesn't take into account what the cost (not just in monetary terms) of mitigation strategies will be. It doesn't consider the chance that it may be wrong. It doesn't consider what the additional impact will be if it can't be mitigated. It doesn't consider how we will deal with the consequences if it's an entirely natural phenomenon and all the focus is on trying to turn it around.
 
Swa said:
No its not. My browser find also works perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

It's in the middle of the second paragraph on p. 2 of the article:

"Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to ques-
tion 2."
 
When you go through the individual IPCC reports chapter for chapter, you get a sense of the dedication and effort put into the reports by those involved in the compilation. Each individual section makes plenty is sense within its own right.
It is when you get to the conclusions that the problems arise.
An example is the final sections on temperature rises. The forecasts all show that temperatures should have shown an increase since the first report. Yet, the observed results are just not happening. And the gap between the forecasts and actual is increasing. Somewhere there is something missing.
It is what led to the heavy "hockey stick" debate on AR 4.
Busy currently reading that section again at the moment.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
LMAO oh the irony is dripping, make it stop, I can only laugh so hard before it becomes a health risk, please!

When you invoke the logical fallacy god:
- YOU make it abundantly clear that YOU are unable to construct a logical argument
- you broadcast to all and sundry that rather than engage with an argument, like an adult, you prefer to point out that someone has transgressed an imaginary rule that others, as incapable as yourself when it comes to debate, conjured out of thin air

But hey, don't let me stop you, continue praying to your false god, I will continue to classify you alongside all the other religious fanatics, it's the most apt metaphor after all :cool:
Click to expand...
How easy it must be to just blurt out rubbish without considering whether it makes logical sense.

Your argument was baseless and made no sense as it compared apples to rocks.
 
I think when you look at the data over millions of years, the earth is destined to get warmer and warmer and there's not much we can do about it.

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere $500mill years ago was over 10 times the current level and has been steadily decreasing. Plants thrive in a high CO2 atmosphere as long as there is also enough water. Which is why there were huge lush forests for millions of years. All our fossil fuels come from those dead plants an animals which lived during those high CO2 times. Over time, CO2 levels went down as it was sucked out of the atmosphere by plants and absorbed by the sea/land. We are just releasing that same CO2 which was in the atmosphere back into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels.

Apparently we didn't have a runaway greenhouse effect back then because the sun was a lot cooler and has been getting steadily warmer. So the sun is the key when looking at long periods of time. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (as well as the more abundant water vapour) which does increase the temperature of the earth. So even though CO2 levels are 10 times lower than in the past, the earth is still maintaining a relatively steady temperature because the sun has been getting hotter.

We can't really drop CO2 levels too low (if we could) as this would kill most of the plant life on earth which all life depends on.

tldr; High temps might make things bad for humans but it's not bad for the earth and it's eventually going to come. Plants will thrive and animals will evolve. Unless we can find a way to block the sun from hitting the earth (which would be bad for plants so bad idea) we will have to evolve too.

CO2 is also not poison or bad like many believe it to be. It is a key ingredient for life to thrive on this planet. In the time of the dinosaurs, which required massive amounts vegetation to evolve into the sizes they did, the CO2 levels were over 5 times the current level. Without the high CO2 levels, there would never have been enough vegetation to support such evolution.
 
Last edited:
rietrot said:
Lol the guardian is not a scientific journal and that's just some random journalist option.
Click to expand...

My goodness, do you even understand how these things work?
The newspaper is reporting on a study that was made.
They didn't do the research themselves, they are only a reporting channel.
Did you even read the article, because it's all in there.
Do you know the difference between a newspaper and a research group?
What else don't you know?
 
LazyLion said:
My goodness, do you even understand how these things work?
The newspaper is reporting on a study that was made.
They didn't do the research themselves, they are only a reporting channel.
Did you even read the article, because it's all in there.
Do you know the difference between a newspaper and a research group?
What else don't you know?
Click to expand...
I read the first paragraph which was already a bunch of BS. If it starts with that much inaccuracies there's really no point to continue.

But I can understand how you could fall for it and lap up every ridiculous word. It basically starts out as a evangelical religious sermon praising that everything you ever believed to be true is, because the science consensus god is great.
 
Oh jesus here we go again.
LazyLion said:
My goodness, do you even understand how these things work?
The newspaper is reporting on a study that was made.
They didn't do the research themselves, they are only a reporting channel.
Did you even read the article, because it's all in there.
Do you know the difference between a newspaper and a research group?
What else don't you know?
Click to expand...

You have no chance in hell of planting any conviction here.
Given how the Guardian has been associated with far-left rhetoric he's just going to brush it off.
Oh and don't forget, that article is almost a full day old now... "We've learned so much since then"
 
* peeks in *

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.
Click to expand...


Modern Climate Change Is the Only Worldwide Warming Event of the Past 2,000 Years
Click to expand...

Oh boy...
*facepalm*

* leaves again, regretting having peeked in *
 
RaptorSA said:
Oh jesus here we go again.


You have no chance in hell of planting any conviction here.
Given how the Guardian has been associated with far-left rhetoric he's just going to brush it off.
Oh and don't forget, that article is almost a full day old now... "We've learned so much since then"
Click to expand...
(1)The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%,(2) according to the lead author of the (3)most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the(4) remaining doubts.
Click to expand...

This is the opening paragraph of the guardian article. It has nothing to do with the left or right politics. It is just plain BS and the journalist option.
(1) non of the studies, studied the "scientific concensus" which is a completely ridiculous idea to start of with.
The journalist pulled the 99% out of his ass.
(2) If that was really according to the lead author he should probably put it in his study.
(3)"most authoritative" fscking lol.
(4) how can there even be remaining doubts? What doubts? After the most authoritative source just told everyone what to believe. Does this idiot know how great the 99% is that he just claimed.
 
To quote from the CC Bible (IPCC AR5), the word "likely" means a 66-100% probability.

1564043879273.png

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.
Click to expand...

So we have a consensus that has a probability of 66-100% to have passed 99%? The statisticians amongst us please explain how to interpret the above.

So what! The consensus says that in the last 2000 years, this is the fastest temperature change that has occurred over the shortest possible time. Okay then accepted. That the data suggests that this is possibly true.

And now what? Does that conclusively "prove" the cause-effect relationship?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X