The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
(3 votes)
Page 1 of 132 12341151101 ... Last
Results 1 to 25 of 3285

  1. Post
    #1

    information is beautiful: climate change denier arguments


  2. Post
    #2
    Consensus Conclusion?

    The scientific consensus?

    LOL.

  3. Post
    #3
    Neat idea for a website.

    Havent been keeping up with the climate change stuff much, anyone that denies it completely though must feel like an outcast and it must be harder and harder in the face of increasing evidence.

    They would more likely view themselves as being privy to esoteric knowledge however above the masses

    It continues
    |_emon
    Guest

  4. Post
    #4
    Vulcan wrote:
    Consensus Conclusion?

    The scientific consensus?

    LOL.
    Name 50 respectable scientists not in the pockets of big oil who deny climate change.

  5. Post
    #5
    wasnt too long ago that the scientific consensus was to the left of that picture

  6. Post
    #6
    .THiNK.SPeAK. wrote:
    wasnt too long ago that the scientific consensus was to the left of that picture
    it is good to know scientific consensus has flexibility

  7. Post
    #7
    .THiNK.SPeAK. wrote:
    wasnt too long ago that the scientific consensus was to the left of that picture
    Really? When was this that the current unnatural global warming trend was widely believed to not be the result of human expansion?

  8. Post
    #8
    I don't believe in "man-made" global warming.

  9. Post
    #9
    eug1404 wrote:
    Name 50 respectable scientists not in the pockets of big oil who deny climate change.
    Google is your friend.

    So citing a web site is sufficient for a consensus?

    Well, it's a nice religious poster I spose.

    Oh and nice double standards on the right hand side about the ice cores ... ice cores are so reliable... but we had to tweak the ice core figures LOL.

  10. Post
    #10
    It is the scientific consensus in climatology. Scoff all you like.

  11. Post
    #11
    Vulcan wrote:
    Oh and nice double standards on the right hand side about the ice cores ... ice cores are so reliable... but we had to tweak the ice core figures LOL.
    ^ calibrate would be a more correct term.


    .THiNK.SPeAK. wrote:
    wasnt too long ago that the scientific consensus was to the left of that picture
    I don't think the scientific consensus was ever to the left.

  12. Post
    #12
    Yossarian wrote:
    It is the scientific consensus in climatology. Scoff all you like.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

    Oh rully?

  13. Post
    #13
    Ya, rly.

    Consensus != unanimity. It's unrealistic to expect all academics to agree on any point. In fact, I'm sure I could find you a PhD to claim the Earth is flat.

    Half those people in the list you quote aren't even specialists in the field of climate science, nor are some of their supposed "scepticisims" actually particularly sceptical. Some of them are just laypeople. When I get my PhD, suddenly if I voice an opinion on the theory of gravitation being caused by invisible trolls, my name could be added to a wiki list just like that. Would my opinion on the theory of gravitation suddenly have more weight because I'm a doctor? No, because I'm a neuroscientist, and didn't recieve training in anything but neuroscience. Seriously,

    Do you know how many tens of thousands of researchers there are in the field? And this motley crew is the best they can come up with? Give me a break.

  14. Post
    #14
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

    Try find a national scientific body that have a dissenting opinion.

    Good luck, you'll need it.

  15. Post
    #15
    I agree with Yossarian, the University of Auckland School of Environment (new name this year) must have something like 100 scientists alone.

  16. Post
    #16
    http://www.stj911.org/members/index.html

    Oh look; I have as many, if not far more names of scientists than you on my list. Therefore mine must also be true.

  17. Post
    #17
    jono_ wrote:
    http://www.stj911.org/members/index.html

    Oh look; I have as many, if not far more names of scientists than you on my list. Therefore mine must also be true.
    Not sure if you're trying to mock me or yourself

    Hasan Ali Post Graduate Diploma in Fashion Merchandising none
    LOL

  18. Post
    #18
    Marados. wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

    Try find a national scientific body that have a dissenting opinion.

    Good luck, you'll need it.
    Has the IPCC stated irrefutably that global warming is 100% definitely and in no doubt man made?

  19. Post
    #19
    Vulcan wrote:
    Has the IPCC stated irrefutably that global warming is 100% definitely and in no doubt man made?
    No, they haven't. They say they're about 90% (or higher) sure that it's influenced by man.

    The fact that you're asking if they're 100% sure without a doubt implies that you have a bit to learn about the scientific method on the whole.

  20. Post
    #20
    personally,

    I won't believe it until I see a statistically relevant number of planets have their environmental prosperity diminished within a correlated time frame of the occupying civilizations' industrialization.

  21. Post
    #21
    Marados. wrote:
    No, they haven't. They say they're about 90% (or higher) sure that it's influenced by man.
    They don't even say they're 90% sure

  22. Post
    #22
    It's unrealistic to think climate scientists would say "theres nothing interesting happening here, so cut down our funding".

    Vulcan makes a good point, the ice cores are treated as a record of great accuracy, but scientists simply move and change the data when it doesn't meet the preconceived conclusion, this is no kind of science at all. Same with tree rings, actually moreso without any known reason tree ring data becomes unreliable from 1960, did trees suddenly come to a consensus and change their growth patterns?. When data doesn't match up to the preconception, it's either changed or written off as anomalous. If this were a court case mankind would be walking away as freely as David Bain.

  23. Post
    #23
    I don't know if you could say scientists move and change ice core data. They might revise their estimated ages and their calibration techniques but thats the scientific method at work isn't it?

    When you say tree ring data becomes unreliable from 1960 what tree ring data are you referring to? Are we talking about using tree rings as a dating technique or as a proxy for climate, or both?

  24. Post
    #24
    They admit to 'fixing' ice core when it doesn't match tree rings (which they then say aren't reliable because they don't match thermometer readings), The whole thing seems to unravel if you pull at any of its loose threads.

  25. Post
    #25
    Vulcan wrote:
    They don't even say they're 90% sure
    Sources:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/sc...ss%3Cbr%20/%3E