Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

[Techne]

Nice post copa. So 3% dont agree... thats not even enough to be classed as fringe. Funny thing is around 50% of the forumites here are too stupid to listen to those scientists and will pretend its a conspiracy by those scientists. Man, but South Africans lack any kinda decent scientific education. Its all rugby and woodwork all the way

That's really not fair wizard. You can't expect everyone to be as scientifically clued up as you (what kind of scientific education do you have btw that gives you the right to make these accusations). Besides, science is not about "reaching a consensus" or about democratically elected "scientific consensus". Also, 99% of people that "defer to consensus" don't even know what they believe to be true anyway. they just take the word of scientists t be true without trying to understand. This can be dangerous.

But, having said that, I think it is rather obvious that man has an effect on climate, the issue is how much we do affect the climate and whether this effect might be disastrous for us if we don't change our ways. There is no "consensus" on this.

This person (Professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service) might be seen as part of the 3% "crackpots"...oh well. The polar bears seem to be doing fine, they are of the endangered list now and fears that England won't see snow ever again or the North pole might melt completely by 2013 seems to have been alarmist propaganda. The south pole ice extent has actually increased over the past 30 years, and this year (with a big el nino) was actually the second warmest on record. The sun is also very quiet (few sunspots), the PDO is...well oscillating naturally and the ENSO is going into negative mode (meaning it is going cold) What does all this mean? Nothing much, except that we live in interesting times .

 

[w1z4rd]

That's really not fair wizard. You can't expect everyone to be as scientifically clued up as you (what kind of scientific education do you have btw that gives you the right to make these accusations). Besides, science is not about "reaching a consensus" or about democratically elected "scientific consensus". Also, 99% of people that "defer to consensus" don't even know what they believe to be true anyway. they just take the word of scientists t be true without trying to understand. This can be dangerous.

But, having said that, I think it is rather obvious that man has an effect on climate, the issue is how much we do affect the climate and whether this effect might be disastrous for us if we don't change our ways. There is no "consensus" on this.

This person (Professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service) might be seen as part of the 3% "crackpots"...oh well. The polar bears seem to be doing fine, they are off the endangered list now and fears that England won't see snow ever again or the North pole might melt completely by 2013 seems to have been alarmist propaganda. The south pole ice extent has actually increased over the past 30 years, and this year (with a big el nino) was actually the second warmest on record. The sun is also very quiet (few sunspots) and the PDO is going into negative mode (meaning it is going cold)... What does all this mean? Nothing much, except that we live in interesting times .

lol - I see a leopard does not change its spots No matter how many nicknames they register.

 

[Archer]

I was wondering if it was in the design of earth and the universe that man would eventually let the universe fall apart or become unstable/unusable...
That it was designed to let man decide his own faith. Meaning that no matter what we did, we would have had to start/contribute to global warming to evolve.
There was no way of stopping it, it was inevitable, in the design...

Its called entropy. Eventually there will be no useable energy in the universe and hence everything will be dead. Whether or not it was "designed" is another matter entirely.

 

[Techne]

lol - I see a leopard does not change its spots No matter how many nicknames they register.

And I see you are still avoiding questions with quasi-(actually, underhanded/sneaky/devious is more accurate) fallacious ad hominems. I think we actually agree on a lot, you are just too stubborn to admit it. Anyway, what kind of scientific education do you have that gives you the right to make these accusations about "scientifically illiterate" South Africans?

 

[w1z4rd]

And I see you are still avoiding questions with quasi-fallacious ad hominems. I think we actually agree on a lot, you are just too stubborn to admit it. Anyway, what kind of scientific education do you have that gives you the right to make these accusations about "scientifically illiterate" South Africans?

I refer to IC`s signature and wave you on your way

 

[Techne]

I refer to IC`s signature and wave you on your way

And I'll refer you to this thread (should apply to this section as well) and especially this one and wave you on your way .

 

[Archer]

snip

I think you're lost... this is Natural Sciences, not PD. So I'll refer to the Queen of England, and wave at you all

 

[Techne]

I think you're lost... this is Natural Sciences, not PD. So I'll refer to the Queen of England, and wave at you all

Ad hominems and other fallacies are not allowed, that much is obvious... those who think they can resort to such tactics (in any section) are lost. See you .

 

[murraybiscuit]

Anyway, what kind of scientific education do you have that gives you the right to make these accusations about "scientifically illiterate" South Africans?

i think you can safely assume that south africa has a pretty shabby general science literacy level...
http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-232.phtml
that the teachers aren't particularly well qualified for the task...
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Science-teacher-shock-for-SA-20100503
and that our literacy level in general is pretty disgraceful...
http://www.economist.com/node/15270976

 

[STS]

i'm very sceptical of most things, and from being one of the most cynical and misanthropic people here i thought i'd throw pennies at some of you

i am very pro-nature. i mean i eat meat but i understand healthy a veggie diet can be, and i also know how we poison the environment and destroy it for the sake of progress. what i have never been able to accept is global warming.

just out of curiosity and as a person who is genuinely interested, what evidence can i look at to tell that global warming is happening? stuff that i can do, not charts, or biased data, or people with political aims, just basic stuff? there is stuff i could go and tell people to do and look at that could prove the earth is round right outside.

i don't doubt global warming, i just doubt it on the scale that most people claim that it will happen.

 

[Techne]

100%

I don't actually give a shyte who or what is causing it, only ignorant morons will sit and point fingers at each other - the fact is the polar caps r melting!!! and the scientist keep having to revise their calculations cause it's melting faster than they thought and the scientist have calculated that if both ice caps melt completely then global sea levels will rise 60m that means coastal regions world wide will be devastated!! Cape Town / Cape flats will no longer exist!!

the other major concern is when colossal chunks of ice fall off into the sea causing tsunami's? we all know what devastation a tsunami can cause! Do u think CT will cope with a tsunami like the 2004 tsunami??

and what about the weight of billions of tons of ice on the land underneath the south pole? scientist know that when the ground rebounds it causes earthquakes which can cause tsunami's?

but hey the cool thing is I may not be around in 50yrs to experience it, but you laaities will be - so enjoy the devastation

The south pole ice extent has actually grown the past 30 years.

From Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

And here are the Northern hemisphere and global pictures:

 

[murraybiscuit]

Besides, science is not about "reaching a consensus" or about democratically elected "scientific consensus". Also, 99% of people that "defer to consensus" don't even know what they believe to be true anyway. they just take the word of scientists t be true without trying to understand. This can be dangerous.

yes, it can be dangerous. but it's more dangerous to go around spouting a baseless opinion when you haven't done enough research yourself on the subject.
i don't see any issue with deferring to leading majority opinion on a matter of dispute.
unless you believe that by reading a few papers on an issue your opionion counts more than somebody who has studied the matter as their life's work?

 

[murraybiscuit]

i'm very sceptical of most things, and from being one of the most cynical and misanthropic people here i thought i'd throw pennies at some of you

i am very pro-nature. i mean i eat meat but i understand healthy a veggie diet can be, and i also know how we poison the environment and destroy it for the sake of progress. what i have never been able to accept is global warming.

just out of curiosity and as a person who is genuinely interested, what evidence can i look at to tell that global warming is happening? stuff that i can do, not charts, or biased data, or people with political aims, just basic stuff? there is stuff i could go and tell people to do and look at that could prove the earth is round right outside.

i don't doubt global warming, i just doubt it on the scale that most people claim that it will happen.

i think it's more about the rate of acceleration and projected extent rather than what we're living in today.
the fear is that we will start a knock-on effect which we won't be able to stop. whether that has grounds is really only for time to tell.
but you're right - our environmental impact is larger than just our carbon emissions.

 

[STS]

i think it's more about the rate of acceleration and projected extent rather than what we're living in today.
the fear is that we will start a knock-on effect which we won't be able to stop. whether that has grounds is really only for time to tell.
but you're right - our environmental impact is larger than just our carbon emissions.

to me this is just like the communistic conspiracy, while i mean their is evidence and the thing clearly exists, it's just being grossly exaggerated. people thinking slapping "scientists agree" next to something make it more compelling, just as christians are impressed when churches or pastors band together to announce something.

i'm not criticising any of you as i might be a complete dumb**** and not know the real facts, but in my unbiased view where i couldn't care one way or the other what the result is, i just don't' see it. i just find that many atheists agree with global warming, which is where i disagree with them

 

[Archer]

Think of it this way - name one single activity or item created by humans that does not create excess heat. Thats how you know we are contributing in some way, the real question is how much.
Electricity? Lots of heat there
Cars - more heat
Computers - more heat
Heaters -
Manufacturing of anything - more heat
War - more heat
etc

 

[STS]

Think of it this way - name one single activity or item created by humans that does not create excess heat. Thats how you know we are contributing in some way, the real question is how much.
Electricity? Lots of heat there
Cars - more heat
Computers - more heat
Heaters -
Manufacturing of anything - more heat
War - more heat
etc

but heat dies after awhile? leave a hot bath and it becomes cold, turn off a plug and it cools down?

 

[Techne]

Think of it this way - name one single activity or item created by humans that does not create excess heat. Thats how you know we are contributing in some way, the real question is how much.
Electricity? Lots of heat there
Cars - more heat
Computers - more heat
Heaters -
Manufacturing of anything - more heat
War - more heat

The heat generated from these things are minuscule when compared to the sun. Of course they contribute, but relative to the sun it is extremely small. The issue is with the CO2 generated (and trapping the suns heat...greenhouse effect) to get these things to work. Some speculate that if the CO2 doubles, it will increase temps by 1 degree Celsius, some say 4, some say less, some say more. looking at the current trend, CO2 should double in about 30-40 years.

 

[Techne]

but heat dies after awhile? leave a hot bath and it becomes cold, turn off a plug and it cools down?

It doesn't "die". It either escapes earth into outer space or gets transformed into other kinds of energy on earth, or just stays as heat (kinetically fast moving molecules or whatever).

 

[Archer]

but heat dies after awhile? leave a hot bath and it becomes cold, turn off a plug and it cools down?

Physics failure - the heat does not disappear, everything just reaches a new equilibrium. And since earth is a semi closed system, some of that heat remains.

 

[Archer]

The heat generated from these things are minuscule when compared to the sun. Of course they contribute, but relative to the sun it is extremely small. The issue is with the CO2 generated (and trapping the suns heat...greenhouse effect) to get these things to work. Some speculate that if the CO2 doubles, it will increase temps by 1 degree Celsius, some say 4, some say less, some say more. looking at the current trend, CO2 should double in about 30-40 years.

Doing a rough calculation we produce 0.05% of the energy provided by means of solar radiation. Thats probably a heck of a lot more than what you were exepcting, and definately not a miniscule amount. Going to try and verify...