COP21 - What are your thoughts?

[StellenboschStudent]

So with COP21 starting Sunday in Paris, I want to know what your thoughts are on climate change.

There is no denying that the climate is changing. That being said, I think what is being reported in the media and what all the doomsday preachers are preaching is taking things a bit far. On the flip side, the people saying there is nothing to worry about, I believe is also wrong.
However, I feel this is like many debates, you are in either of the two camps, with limited people in the middle. If you believe in climate change, no scientific data will convince you otherwise, and the opposite is also true, if you don't believe, almost nothing will change your mind.

So what are your thoughts? Will the oceans rise by 1m and submerge whole cities in ocean water?
Or is this just all a made up thing for Al Gore to get rich?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

So with COP21 starting Sunday in Paris, I want to know what your thoughts are on climate change.

There is no denying that the climate is changing. That being said, I think what is being reported in the media and what all the doomsday preachers are preaching is taking things a bit far. On the flip side, the people saying there is nothing to worry about, I believe is also wrong.
However, I feel this is like many debates, you are in either of the two camps, with limited people in the middle. If you believe in climate change, no scientific data will convince you otherwise, and the opposite is also true, if you don't believe, almost nothing will change your mind.

So what are your thoughts? Will the oceans rise by 1m and submerge whole cities in ocean water?
Or is this just all a made up thing for Al Gore to get rich?

I think you're setting up something of a false equivalence here. The people who accept anthropogenic climate change do so because of the voluminous scientific data that supports it.

On COP21:

Paris climate summit: the climate circus comes to town

Whether anything substantial will come out of it? Who knows. The US can't really commit properly to anything without having the GOP clown parade immediately scuppering it.

 

[StellenboschStudent]

I think you're setting up something of a false equivalence here. The people who accept anthropogenic climate change do so because of the voluminous scientific data that supports it.

On COP21:

Paris climate summit: the climate circus comes to town

Whether anything substantial will come out of it? Who knows. The US can't really commit properly to anything without having the GOP clown parade immediately scuppering it.

I can give you voluminous scientific data that disproofs anthropogenic climate change... That is the problem, there are too many different opinions on the subject.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I can give you voluminous scientific data that disproofs anthropogenic climate change... That is the problem, there are too many different opinions on the subject.

lol, sure you can.

 

[StellenboschStudent]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...bal-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record
https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.225001
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2013/01/swsc120043/swsc120043.html
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/32243/1/pre-print.pdf
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2014/01/swsc130050/swsc130050.html

Just a few articles, can post many many more.
Just to be clear, I also believe us humans are contributing to climate change, I just don't believe it is a dire as the media would want us to believe. There are many factors influencing the climate, most of which we cannot control. So, by all means, lets try our best to limit our influence on the climate by changing the few parameters that we can control, like CO2 emissions.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...bal-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record
https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.225001
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2013/01/swsc120043/swsc120043.html
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/32243/1/pre-print.pdf
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2014/01/swsc130050/swsc130050.html

Just a few articles, can post many many more.
Just to be clear, I also believe us humans are contributing to climate change, I just don't believe it is a dire as the media would want us to believe. There are many factors influencing the climate, most of which we cannot control. So, by all means, lets try our best to limit our influence on the climate by changing the few parameters that we can control, like CO2 emissions.

On the first one:

Study drives a sixth nail into the global warming ‘pause’ myth

Can't access the second one...

One the third one: Where does that say anything about anthropogenic climate change? Ditto on the 4th?

Anyway, read this website, especially the myths tab on the left...

http://www.skepticalscience.com

 

[StellenboschStudent]

On the first one:

Study drives a sixth nail into the global warming ‘pause’ myth

Can't access the second one...

One the third one: Where does that say anything about anthropogenic climate change? Ditto on the 4th?

Anyway, read this website, especially the myths tab on the left...

http://www.skepticalscience.com

The articles show that there is more to it than humans. The sun has a major influence on the different layers of the atmosphere, it influences the magnetic field that protects us from all the crap out there...

As for the first article, this sort of proofs my point: there are too many opinions and the facts can be sort of bend to proof either side of the story.
Go and have a look at http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

 

[Cray]

As for the first article, this sort of proofs my point: there are too many opinions and the facts can be sort of bend to proof either side of the story.
Go and have a look at http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

Umm....

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Umm....

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Further on that...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

At least 9 surveys of scientists and meta studies of academic papers concerning global warming have been carried out since 2004. While up to 18% of scientists surveyed might disagree with the consensus view, when restricted to scientists publishing in the field of climate, 97 to 100% agreed with the consensus. The consensus view being that most of the current warming is anthropogenic.

Even fsckin' Exxon's cited studies agree on this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/two-face-exxon-misinformation-campaign-against-own-scientists.html

I reviewed all 53 of the papers referenced by Exxon’s spokesman, and they indeed consist of high-quality scientific research. Most of them implicitly or explicitly endorsed the expert consensus on human-caused global warming; none minimized or rejected it. This means that there is a 100% consensus on human-caused global warming among Exxon’s peer-reviewed climate science research – even higher than the 97% consensus in the rest of the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The articles show that there is more to it than humans. The sun has a major influence on the different layers of the atmosphere, it influences the magnetic field that protects us from all the crap out there...

As for the first article, this sort of proofs my point: there are too many opinions and the facts can be sort of bend to proof either side of the story.
Go and have a look at http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

Well, guess you didn't read the site I linked.

As for that site: the same guy that believes in chemtrails and thinks the sun causes earthquakes? Hahaha.

Anyway, he's a woo-peddler:

http://whac-a-troll.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/speaking-of-not-responding-ladies-and.html

 

[c3n0byt3]

I always see these threads and really feel the need to comment.
But it's always such hard work. I think it's actually a researched thing, i.e. responding to climate "skeptics" (not saying OP is necessarily one).
Thanks to OrbitalDawn for actually taking the time!

 

[Cray]

Further on that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Yup, the problem seems to be that some scientists seem to think they are qualified to make pronouncements outside of their field of study, like a certain neurosurgeon...

 

[StellenboschStudent]

Umm....

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

But that remaining 3%

That is an easy statement to make, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change here they say something different.
But if you use scientific studies and data gathered in a scientific matter, shouldn't 100% of scientists agree?
But with that said, I am sure not 100% of scientists believe in, let say, evolution, or general relativity. You always have your skeptics out there and they tend to make a lot of noise...

Further on that...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change



Even fsckin' Exxon's cited studies agree on this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/two-face-exxon-misinformation-campaign-against-own-scientists.html

True, but this also happened: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
They purposefully manipulated data to make it look much worse...

Well, guess you didn't read the site I linked.

As for that site: the same guy that believes in chemtrails and thinks the sun causes earthquakes? Hahaha.

Anyway, he's a woo-peddler:

http://whac-a-troll.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/speaking-of-not-responding-ladies-and.html

I actually read most of the website yesterday... Hence the thread as this is something I am not 100% convinced by either side.
Both websites make good claims, backed with scientific studies and data. Both websites also seem to fluff a bit to make their point...

I always see these threads and really feel the need to comment.
But it's always such hard work. I think it's actually a researched thing, i.e. responding to climate "skeptics" (not saying OP is necessarily one).
Thanks to OrbitalDawn for actually taking the time!

I am not a skeptic, I am 100% convinced us humans are having a negative impact on the earth and the climate. I am just not 100% convinced that it is all doom and gloom.

Yup, the problem seems to be that some scientists seem to think they are qualified to make pronouncements outside of their field of study, like a certain neurosurgeon...

I agree. I am by no means an expert on the opinion, and I am struggling to find accurate, readable and reliable stories to read, and hence the thread.
Most stories go to either extreme, either it is all to late and we are doomed, or climate change is a hoax...

 

[StellenboschStudent]

Point in case: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/the-climate-change-scare

I don't think this guy is an expert on the field, but he did do his homework. But I am sure he was a skeptic from the get go, so he only looked at the facts that proofs his point. But there are some interesting things in the article...

 

[ToxicBunny]

Not really a case in point, he seems to be a journalist and not a scientist.

 

[StellenboschStudent]

Not really a case in point, he seems to be a journalist and not a scientist.

I know. Hence I said

I don't think this guy is an expert on the field, but he did do his homework.

The point is, he uses scientific data to 'proof' all his points.

 

[ToxicBunny]

I know. Hence I said
The point is, he uses scientific data to 'proof' all his points.

No he doesn't...

He talks bull****... This statement in his article is enough to absolutely ignore the rest of the shyte he types...

Science does not support the climate change scare, but there is a gigantic vested interest, financial and ideological, in promoting it.

 

[StellenboschStudent]

Sure, that is a very bold claim to make, as there are millions and millions of peer-reviewed articles that, with almost 100% certainty, shows humans have an influence on the climate and the way it behaves.
If you read the entire article, there are some references to peer-reviewed articles, some of the graphs also give their origin, and the author successfully (to an extend) 'proofs' his point.

I do not agree with everything he says, large portions of the article are really badly written and badly researched. I feel like he went out of his way to get articles and data to proof his point, and he purposefully ignored many articles that could correct many of the statements he makes.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

True, but this also happened: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
They purposefully manipulated data to make it look much worse...

Yeah...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.

This also happened (and continues to happen)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Climate change denial is a huge industry.

I actually read most of the website yesterday... Hence the thread as this is something I am not 100% convinced by either side.
Both websites make good claims, backed with scientific studies and data. Both websites also seem to fluff a bit to make their point...

Well the consensus among climatologists is there, i.e. the people that know more about this than we do, and work with it every day.

I am not a skeptic, I am 100% convinced us humans are having a negative impact on the earth and the climate. I am just not 100% convinced that it is all doom and gloom.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.

I agree. I am by no means an expert on the opinion, and I am struggling to find accurate, readable and reliable stories to read, and hence the thread.
Most stories go to either extreme, either it is all to late and we are doomed, or climate change is a hoax...

I think you might be reading denialists' claims about what scientists' say about climate change rather than what the scientists themselves are saying.

SkepticalScience and Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog are good reads on the topic. The latter is about much more than climate change, but worth a follow anyway.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html

Point in case: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/the-climate-change-scare

I don't think this guy is an expert on the field, but he did do his homework. But I am sure he was a skeptic from the get go, so he only looked at the facts that proofs his point. But there are some interesting things in the article...

Well, since he starts with this... "Belief in man-made “Global Warming”, now renamed “Climate Change” ", doesn't bode well already.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'.

 

[c3n0byt3]

I am not a skeptic, I am 100% convinced us humans are having a negative impact on the earth and the climate. I am just not 100% convinced that it is all doom and gloom.

Ah ok. So you're not really looking at climate science (i.e. the atmospheric science) per say. More at the impacts side.
If you're looking to climate scientists to provide you with proper impacts work and research, you're looking at the wrong place.
And it's also true that the impacts are extremely difficult to quantify, not just because of the human factor, but also because the scientists that do specialize in it are not used to working with huge simulated data. So there's often a misunderstanding between the two fields, much like the misunderstanding the general public has when it comes to science (exacerbated by the media, which is where most of your reading seems to be focused).

It's also true that there are those that exaggerate the impacts, for whatever reason, which does hurt the science.
I can think of Green Peace, who may have the best intentions, but in this world of science literacy (or at least aiming for it), their arguments do the environment more harm than good.
But what work has been properly done on the potential impacts of climate change does point to some very negative things.
At what level do you consider doom and gloom though? It may just be a perception thing. To me the 2x increase (over and above global average) southern Africa will face by 2100 can lead to some pretty gloomy and doomy impacts. Just off the top of my head I can think in the spread of Malaria, crop yields drop to unsustainable levels in areas already burdened, longer heatwaves. It's not the stuff of movies which is where some people get their perception of doom and gloom. But besides the actual impacts can you imagine the human reaction to even those changes.