Global warming - What's your "opinion"?

[Megazone]

There will be another species to take its place.

My money's on Rabbits. They without doubt have the capabilities to takeover from the humans race. Watership down is your evidence.

 

[BadFish]

My money's on Rabbits. They without doubt have the capabilities to takeover from the humans race. Watership down is your evidence.

Made me laugh........ and it isn't the worst citation on this thread

 

[pb21]

you dont agree with someones politics, so you they cant be reasoned with on matters of science? do you not see how ridiculous that is?

that wiki list of people with objections to IPCC kicks off with David Bellamy (literally wrote the book The Greenhouse Effect), includes visionary Freeman Dyson and well known right-winger Peirs Corbyn. maybe the politics isnt as settled as you think?

I think people, like this Dr Spencer fellow, who are right wing free market loving libertarian types first and scientists second, are skeptics/deniers not because they are scientists but because they are the aforementioned.

Its their politics, which is innate to them, that defines their stance on climate change, which is a political as well as a scientific issue.

It would be like trying to talk about the advantages of privatisation of the NHS with a socialist.

 

[sydney]

On the rags? Rags? you can't even insult someone properly, you penis.

i think you'll find i can ...... cockwomble......

 

[sydney]

If humans became extinct, mother Earth will heal the planet In no time. The Earth has been hotter and colder in the past. There will be another species to take its place.

iguanas , cockroaches , camels , goats ......but a mass extinction of humanity is virtually impossible ....in my opinion.

 

[larus]

Yes the title was quite clear but some of the content seemed to muddy the waters a little.

Anyway

I am interested to know what percantage of scientists you think agree and disagree with man made climate change? You disputed the 97% earlier in the thread so I was wondering what your research puts the figure at?

First, thank you for the civil comments - unlike some on here.

I posted this earlier on the thread. As you can see, I'm not disputing that there is a figure of 97%, but it's how that figure is achieved which makes it wrong in terms of the percentages.

----------------------------------------------

One example of the analysis of the 97% claim (note - nothing to do with the science, but the production of the 97% statistic which gets quoted).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...cientists-say/


Sample from the article:

I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or scientists) that have used the phrase ‘97% of climate scientists, have actually read the original source of the cited survey.

“Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.

There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not, but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here

 

[BadFish]

First, thank you for the civil comments - unlike some on here.

I posted this earlier on the thread. As you can see, I'm not disputing that there is a figure of 97%, but it's how that figure is achieved which makes it wrong in terms of the percentages.

----------------------------------------------

One example of the analysis of the 97% claim (note - nothing to do with the science, but the production of the 97% statistic which gets quoted).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...cientists-say/


Sample from the article:

I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or scientists) that have used the phrase ‘97% of climate scientists, have actually read the original source of the cited survey.

“Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.

There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not, but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here

Your link doesn't work, could you repost?

 

[larus]

Sorry, it was a copy and past from my earlier post. This does work.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

 

[dingodan]

I think people, like this Dr Spencer fellow, who are right wing free market loving libertarian types first and scientists second, are skeptics/deniers not because they are scientists but because they are the aforementioned.

Its their politics, which is innate to them, that defines their stance on climate change, which is a political as well as a scientific issue.

It would be like trying to talk about the advantages of privatisation of the NHS with a socialist.

That would be to question a persons integrity and sincerity though. Is there any good reason to do that, beyond the fact that their opinion is different?

I always think it's better to not make assumptions about peoples motives, and infact, assume everyone to be sincere. Not everyone will be, but assuming someone isn't sincere or has other motives than those they claim to only allows you to dismiss or avoid what they are saying. Better to take them as being sincere and their motives to be genuine (even if they are not) then you put yourself in a position of needing to, and being willing to, consider their position on it's merits and, if you want to, challenge it on it's shortcomings.

Challenge ideas by all means, but not the person or their motives. Play the ball, not the man.

 

[pb21]

Challenge ideas by all means, but not the person or their motives. Play the ball, not the man.

I have challenged the ideas many times before and others obviously have done too, including on this thread. But I think it helps to have an understanding of what game and what shape and size ball you are playing with.

You can't play the ball very well thinking it's a game of football, but it's actually 10 pin bowling.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Not read the previous threads,but how did planet Earth evole from the Ice Age to living conditions without "global warming" like Co2 etc ?

 

[dingodan]

I have challenged the ideas many times before and others obviously have done too, including on this thread. But I think it helps to have an understanding of what game and what shape and size ball you are playing with.

You can't play the ball very well thinking it's a game of football, but it's actually 10 pin bowling.

What you are really saying is that it helps to speculate about the motivations and inner workings of someone else. But it doesn't. What good does it do to suggest that someone is motivated by something other than what they say they are? The only thing it lets you do is to dismiss and explain away their argument without dealing with it on it's merits (or lack thereof).

I also think probably, at times, people are motivated to argue for man made global warming because of politics or perhaps sometimes their sense of their own virtue. That being said, I see no benefit - when faced with someone making the case for man made global warming - to suggesting that this applies to them. The only thing it offers is a way of avoiding or dismissing what they are saying.

It's hard enough for us to understand and be aware of our own motives, let alone thinking that we can know someone elses.

 

[pb21]

What you are really saying is that it helps to speculate about the motivations and inner workings of someone else. But it doesn't. What good does it do to suggest that someone is motivated by something other than what they say they are? The only thing it lets you do is to dismiss and explain away their argument without dealing with it on it's merits (or lack thereof).

I also think probably, at times, people are motivated to argue for man made global warming because of politics or perhaps sometimes their sense of their own virtue. That being said, I see no benefit - when faced with someone making the case for man made global warming - to suggesting that this applies to them. The only thing it offers is a way of avoiding or dismissing what they are saying.

It's hard enough for us to understand and be aware of our own motives, let alone thinking that we can know someone elses.

In a sense you are right, I am speculating on the inner workings and motivations, partly because I find that generally interesting, but in this case fundamental to understanding the situation.

Global warming / climate change and politics are so intertwined (possibly in the way you suggest too as that of how I have) that to not try and understand why people may choose one idea over another because of politics would be short sighted.

There are basically two schools of thought; one humans are significantly contributing to climate change through things they do and can potentially lessen that impact by changing their behaviour and the other that humans aren't.

Why do some people, particularly those who don't have a scientific background, let alone a career in climate science, choose to go with the second option despite the vast majority of the scientific community tending towards the first? They are having to make a choice but on what basis?

In addition, on this basis, I would say I was always playing the ball and never the man. I didn't suggest because he had some unfavorable past etc. that is irrelevant to the issue at hand, that we should dismiss them. I was playing the ball, just not necessarily the most obvious in your face ball.

 

[beorhthelm]

There are basically two schools of thought; one humans are significantly contributing to climate change through things they do and can potentially lessen that impact by changing their behaviour and the other that humans aren't.

there's the issue, the binary grouping - believer or heretic. the problem is that while one can accept the initial premise "humans are significantly contributing to climate change", the degree of this contribution and its outcome are not fixed, hard facts, but a series of predictions and probabilities. why is there a divergence from temperatures and CO2 in the hockey stick (recognising the trend correlates)? why has warming slowed in the past decade or so when the CO has continued at the same rate? this doesnt dismiss science at all, it asks if the predictions stand up, and if not, question if policy based upon it is sound, especially when we know many of the policies have been flawed.

 

[pb21]

there's the issue, the binary grouping - believer or heretic. the problem is that while one can accept the initial premise "humans are significantly contributing to climate change", the degree of this contribution and its outcome are not fixed, hard facts, but a series of predictions and probabilities. why is there a divergence from temperatures and CO2 in the hockey stick (recognising the trend correlates)? why has warming slowed in the past decade or so when the CO has continued at the same rate? this doesnt dismiss science at all, it asks if the predictions stand up, and if not, question if policy based upon it is sound, especially when we know many of the policies have been flawed.

Do you think that humans are significantly contributing to climate change through things they do and can potentially lessen that impact by changing their behaviour, or do you not think that?

In that sense it is binary. Of course the impact could be worse and more significant, it could be 'less but still significant. Or the impact may not be significant, or non existent.

You either think the impact is significant or not.