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

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,747
Over 1000 leading scientists have now come out against AGW (20 times the number of UN scientists who authored IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers) http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/S...-UN-IPCC--Gore

Fantastic, so around 0.0001% of scientists disagree with it. Thats less than the numbers required to be considered "lunatic fringe". Heres another list of a lot of scientists who disagree with evolution: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 -

Your point is a 0 pointer. 1000 scientists vs 1 million scientists.

Let me quote wiki for you:

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
 

A Darter

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
23
Fantastic, so around 0.0001% of scientists disagree with it. Thats less than the numbers required to be considered "lunatic fringe". Heres another list of a lot of scientists who disagree with evolution: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 -

Your point is a 0 pointer. 1000 scientists vs 1 million scientists.

Let me quote wiki for you:


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

No, the point is that the number of scientists who authored the "blue print" of what politicians now use were out numbered 20:1. If you're going to quote Wikipedia, then let me not waste my time replying after this post.

All these people were/are part of the UN's IPCC, "the leading body on climate change". Politicians dont go out and do their own research, they simply copy paste what the IPCC says.

“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC's Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,115
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

And how do we know that the body that chose for him to get the award was not part of a scandal? His status in the matter is neither here nor there when talking about conspiracy theories, because we have no idea who is on which side.
All we can do is attempt to analyze the data, and look into the footage etc... that is available to us, and draw conclusions from that. It has gotten to the point where we cannot believe a scientist or body of scientists on their word, as we dont know what agenda they may be a part of.

Quoting and counter quoting wiki's and articles are close to pointless and just sending everyone around in a circle.

Of course the issue with the data is that we dont know if that data/footage has been "modified" to support any one particular stance. So its a bit of a conundrum really. Just realize that counter quoting is just circular tactics that actually get the discussion nowhere. If all fo the conspiracies and counter-conspiracies are to be believed.
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,747
No, the point is that the number of scientists who authored the "blue print" of what politicians now use were out numbered 20:1. If you're going to quote Wikipedia, then let me not waste my time replying after this post.

All these people were/are part of the UN's IPCC, "the leading body on climate change". Politicians dont go out and do their own research, they simply copy paste what the IPCC says.

“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC's Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

:rolleyes:
 

K3NS31

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
3,940
snip...
Of course the issue with the data is that we dont know if that data/footage has been "modified" to support any one particular stance. So its a bit of a conundrum really. Just realize that counter quoting is just circular tactics that actually get the discussion nowhere. If all fo the conspiracies and counter-conspiracies are to be believed.

actually, the IPCC has repeatedly refused to release the original data they based their conclusions on. Needless to say, this has raised much suspicion, as it makes it very difficult for anybody to question them. (it's also a most unscientific way of doing things.)
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,229
actually, the IPCC has repeatedly refused to release the original data they based their conclusions on. Needless to say, this has raised much suspicion, as it makes it very difficult for anybody to question them. (it's also a most unscientific way of doing things.)

http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_exist.html

The IPCC Data Distribution Centre (DDC) was established in 1998, following a recommendation by the IPCC Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Analysis (TGICA), to facilitate the timely distribution of a consistent set of up-to-date scenarios of changes in climate and related environmental and socio-economic factors for use in climate impact and adaptation assessment. While impact researchers are free to use whatever simulations are appropriate for their studies, it is hoped that the wide accessibility to these recent scenarios, and the knowledge that other research groups are probably applying them as well, may persuade analysts to adopt some or all of the scenarios held in the DDC. One of the clear objectives of the Centre is that new studies making use of these scenarios can feed into the IPCC assessment process.
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,229
NO, the raw data that they based their scenarios on. This is referring to the scenarios / simulations themselves (which are useless and grossly inaccurate.

There's tons of raw data in the public domain: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw http://www.ipcc-data.org/obs/index.html Certainly no attempts on the part of the IPCC to suppress data.

They used the same systems to try to predict the climate in 2000 based on data up to the early 80's - wasn't even in the same ballpark as reality)

Hansen's original 1988 predictions were actually rather accurate 20 years later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
 
Last edited:

Metaphysical

Active Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
46
I've got friends who think Al Gore came up with global warming to get rich and to get more publicity. rofl..
 

A Darter

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
23
Wits professor slams climate change as 'world's biggest distraction'

Climate change is probably the world’s biggest distraction and not its biggest and most immediate challenge, which belongs to clean water, says Professor Grant Cawthorn.

Cawthorn, Wits University’s School of Geosciences Platinum Industry Igneous Petrology professor, contends that the lack of fresh water will have a much greater global impact than a “one or two degree” temperature rise.

In a public climate-change lecture delivered to a packed Origins Centre audience in Johannesburg, Cawthorn singled out clean water as the “world’s most imminent challenge”, pollution as the “world’s biggest single over-riding problem” and slammed climate change as “the world’s biggest distraction”.

He recalls that eight of the world’s top economists, including four Nobel laureates, put Kyoto at the bottom of their Copenhagen consensus better-world priority list “because it would cost a great deal and do little good”.

Although he concedes that “we have to do something about climate change in the long term”, he contends that clean water and global-scale pollution are of more immediate concern.

“The trick is to worry about the right things first,” he says.

While the world is being distracted to focus purely on carbon dioxide, he recalls that Mother Nature has dealt with large volumes of carbon dioxide in the past.

“Provided we don’t push the limits too far, nature will come up with ways of dealing with the carbon dioxide,” he contends in a Mining Weekly Online video interview.

“Nature is incredibly benevolent and will actually help to solve our problems, but it may take a longer time than humans want to wait for, so we have to be responsible and react as well,” he adds.

Water footprints and perhaps even plastic footprints should be measured and not just carbon footprints.

He also decries recycling as inadequate.

“We’re encouraged to recycle. I disagree totally. Manufacturers should be forced to make products that can be repaired, reused, refilled and then, only as a last resort, recycled.

“We’re generating a vast quantity of plastic pollution. We live in a throw away society and that is going to destroy the world,” he adds.



Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
 

K3NS31

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
3,940
OMG, How can you post a quote by a dumb denier. So what if he's an actual scientist. And a professor no less?

(/sarcasm)
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,229
OMG, How can you post a quote by a dumb denier. So what if he's an actual scientist. And a professor no less?

(/sarcasm)

Erm, your professor said nothing about climate change being a hoax etc. He just doesn't think it's the most pressing environmental problem right now.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
Climate change is probably the world’s biggest distraction and not its biggest and most immediate challenge, which belongs to clean water, says Professor Grant Cawthorn.
Heard him talk on 702. Entirely agree with him. We should focus on securing our water resources.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,115
Heard him talk on 702. Entirely agree with him. We should focus on securing our water resources.

Ye he does have a point. I would tend to agree that water and polution should have a stronger global focus on it.
 
Top