It’s difficult for the average punter to interpret. What I take from that video is that 97% of “published climate scientists” gets twisted in the media to say “97% of scientists”. It’s not even remotely close to being the same thing. People become suspicious when facts are manipulated like that.
So 97% of peer reviewed climate scientists…not 97% of all scientists like Obama and co state.
Any chance of getting the question(s) that was asked of them ?
I don’t understand your issue with
a) specialists in the field under debate, and
b) peer review
As opposed to the geocities blogs by…some guy with a graph.
I mean, that’s how science works.
You have a theory, you do your research, you make your conclusion and publish your data for other experts to check.
If you’re full of crap then, as we just saw (although I still have no idea what point that was supposed to prove), you get called out.
You say, ‘criticise the content.’
Well, that’s what I’m doing with the stuff you post because it carries about as much weight as what some bloke at the bar reckons.
4 Likes
Your English Expression and spelling are below average.
4/10
I am attacking the content.
3 Likes
Greenies, saving the planet 1,500 private jets at a time.
Remember folks, don’t have ice water at a restaurant or you will destroy the planet.
Use a bicycle to get to work.
Walk to the shops, don’t drive your car.
Use recyclable bags for your shopping.
Don’t have your A/C on less than 26C.
Only eat 14 grams of meat a day (insects are a viable option)
I love it how you think the people at Davos are greenies.
They’re YOUR people. Amoral billionaires, self-centred sociopaths, corporate-owned politicians. People who say stuff like ‘environmental protection is a worthy goal and it definitely should be a priority but we have to consider the interests of job creators and be sure we’re not succumbing to radical green hysteria’ and have been saying that for the last 30 years.
Davos summit on climate change is where the wealthy and powerful who’ve neglected to deal with the problem for decades go in order to plan how to fail next.
6 Likes
He’s not having a good run, is he.
It’s almost like his copypasta is full of ■■■■.
He’s Trip. I suppose you’ve gotta have one, like a toilet. Keeps the dialogue going and fence sitters learn a bit. The yin and the farkstick and all that.
Yes, it will be checked by readers post-publication but (as I’m sure you know) the peer review process should identify any issues before publication. I regularly review journal submissions in another field and, unfortunately, sometimes things get through that IMO shouldn’t. No reviewer is an expert on absolutely everything there is to consider across the ever-expanding range of theories, hypotheses, methodologies etc. But yes, we can have confidence that the vast majority of what comes out through reputable publishers is more or less sound.
I’m sure some stuff does slip through (again, as we saw a little while ago).
Perhaps I’m labouring the point, but I’m comparing that process with ‘man with a blog and a graph reckons this.’
With a side of ‘why would I care what a person who studies how to defeat viruses thinks about climate?’
It’s like asking your shoe-repairer what he thinks of jewellery.
I mean they’re both a trade…
Yeah, I agree with you… But…
1 Like
Touché.
USC is a fair trek to SCUH. 9 kms
Compared to UWA and Hollywood Hospital. 1.6kms. Little late on that discussion though whoops.
There was smoke a couple of days ago, not so much now.
We even had the window open last night to cool place down, couldnt do that the night before as some smoke coming in.
Point proven. Personal attacks.
Tell me what the question was to the get the 97%:
- do you think man contributes to climate change? OR
2: do you think man contributes more than (lets make up a figure), say 97% of the climate change ?
Very different questions aren’t they !!!
Heres another question, what came 1st, global warming or increases to global CO2 ? That is the foundation corner stone of the models used by climate scientists? Prove it !
Insects no thanks,
rather have basil pesto pasta or a vegetable stir fry with 14 grams of chicken or no chicken at all.
Or all those rich blokes stop flying private jets to save the planet.
I’d like you to point out where I have personally attacked you.
Global temperature is affected by many factors - solar activity, albedo, volcanic activity, atmospheric CO2 & other greenhouse gases, vegetation type and coverage, etc etc. These factors have, in pre-industrial times, mostly been driven by natural processes.
As has been exhaustively discussed above, solar activity has remained relatively routine while the dramatic temperature increases of the past few decades have occured. Similarly, there’s been nothing special happening on the volcanic front either. What HAS been happening is an enormous increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity.
Now, there are some feedback effects that complicate matters a bit. Receding ice due to human activity changes the earth’s albedo and results in faster warming. The thawing of permafrost due to human activity causes methane release which also causes increased warming. Etc etc.
But the fundamental cause remains human activity. The physical and chemical basis of why CO2, methane etc act as greenhouse gases are completely uncontroversial, are based in the fundamentals of physics principles, and have been known for well over a hundred years. The amount of heat retained by air with a varying percentage of CO2 - it’s all been lab tested and verified and there is a rock-solid mathematical, thermodynamic, and physical explanation for why it happens. We know why CO2 results in global warming. We know that increased CO2 will result in increased warming, and we can estimate pretty closely how much (we know that amount EXACTLY in a lab situation where there is only air to worry about, but earth and everything in it is a much bigger and more complex case, so we’re a bit less precise there)
The question that you need to answer is - what scientific reason is there for believing that human emission are not responsible for the current warming? Here’s the basic logical construction of the argument:
- we have a solid theoretical and experimental framework explaining how CO2 warms the atmosphere going back many decades.
- We know that the CO2 & greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere is increasing
- We know that this increase is the result of human activity (burning fossil fuels, deforestation, cattle farming etc) and we can reasonably estimate the amounts involved
- We know that the temperature of the earth is increasing, at a rate that correlates reasonably well with what 1) tells us
The inescapable conclusion from these four statements is that humans are responsible for the current global warming. To logically disprove that climate change is human-caused, you have to disprove at least one of those statements.
Prove that CO2 etc don’t cause the greenhouse effect. If you can do this, the line for your Nobel prize in physics starts to the left, cos this is founded in the basics of physics and to disprove it you’ll have to revolutionise the discipline to a degree that’d make Einstein look like a poser
Prove that atmospheric CO2 is not increasing. Good luck with that.
Prove that human activity is not causing the increase. We’ve measured the volcanoes, their contribution is tiny. We KNOW how much coal & oil we burn, how many cattle we farm, etc, and we know these activities release greenhouse gases, and the amounts involved. Are you going to disprove that burning coal emits CO2?
Prove that the earth isn’t warming. Even the dodgy graph you’ve been finding in the more conspiratorial corners of the internet can’t pretend about this any more, though they usually cut off the past 6-8 years or so of consistent record heat just to make their fibs look more plausible.
There you go. A pathway to proving your point. Cos frankly, right now, the ball is in your court. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus (I’m not going to quibble about whether it’s 97% or 94% or 99%, that’s a distraction from the real issues) that climate change is human-driven, and there’s an enormous amount of experimental data, real-life measurements, and theoretical explanations explaining why this is so. The burden of proof is not on us. THe burden of proof is on the people who say “hey, let’s just do nothing about a problem that science is telling us is a massive threat to human civilisation and the earth’s ecosystem, because i reckon they’re wrong because … um …”
Extraordinary claims (like ‘every major scientific body is wrong about something that’s been solidly established science for over a century’) require extraordinary proofs, or at least extraordinary explanations. This sort of thing does happen. Einstein did it. On a smaller scale, it’s happened over the past couple of decades with a revolution in the way paleontologists believe dinosaurs lived and looked like and how their metabolisms work. Science is receptive to being proved wrong if the proof is good enough. The attempts to disprove and cast doubt on climate science have not come close to being good enough.
9 Likes
And finally Monckton throws off his cloak and proudly waves his denialist plumage.
3 Likes
Lord Mockton back.
Thank you HM, your response is a well thought out reply, and it does give pause to my recent train of thoughts re climate change. I will continue to post info that is thought provoking on this subject, but will try and control my impulses to post “anything” negative to the human induced climate change platform and also limit it to reputable sites.
However, I do think a lot of the points re solar activity are very legitimate concerns that are too easily dismissed by the pro climate change bodies and the MSM in general.
It will be interesting to see where the world goes with this over the next 5 years, and at the end of the day hope that whatever happens that countries like Australia aren’t stitched up economically.
FYI Reboot, am more of a fence sitter than a heretic. Cheers.