The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

If was just ordinary people who got someting on internet... But it's more than 95% of the most briliant scientists in the world, believing in Global Warming. So I give credit for them.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The climate is going to change, it's just the global warming believers have been completely wrong about what, how and when the whole time.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

If was just ordinary people who got someting on internet... But it's more than 95% of the most briliant scientists in the world, believing in Global Warming. So I give credit for them.

Who said they were the most brilliant? What study was conducted to prove that the other 5% were less brilliant?

That 95% figure is merely those who agree that human activity affects global temperatures (anthropogenic global warming). It says nothing concerning the degree to which people affect the climate, or what the consequences will be.

Most on here would agree that humans affect the environment, and that includes global climate, so that is relatively uncontroversial. The interesting part of the debate is to what degree do we impact it, what are the consequences (both good and bad), and what are reasonable steps to mitigate the negative consequences.

[oil pan 4]

We are going to get to really see how humans can mess with the climate when China starts dumping tons of stuff into the atmosphere to make it rain more.
But China is actually concerned about what amounts to solar induced global cooling, not man made global warming or the ambitious always moving target catch all of "man made climate change".

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The climate is going to change, it's just the global warming believers have been completely wrong about what, how and when the whole time.
But they keep changing their story so they can pretend like they were right all along.
I'm going to have to say the church of global warming is full of it and they have no idea what's going on let along what's going to happen.

You claim this as a fact - but you are incorrect.

Humans are causing the climate to change this time, by burning fossil fuels. This is clear and there is no debate. All the evidence indicates this is the case.

Refusing to acknowledge facts only make you look foolish.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Who said they were the most brilliant? What study was conducted to prove that the other 5% were less brilliant?

That 95% figure is merely those who agree that human activity affects global temperatures (anthropogenic global warming). It says nothing concerning the degree to which people affect the climate, or what the consequences will be.

Most on here would agree that humans affect the environment, and that includes global climate, so that is relatively uncontroversial. The interesting part of the debate is to what degree do we impact it, what are the consequences (both good and bad), and what are reasonable steps to mitigate the negative consequences.

The worst-case-scenario is that we've already emitted too much.That humans weren't on Earth the last time we had this concentration of CO2.What's there,will be there for 1,000 years,and feedback loops will advance geometrically,pushing towards extinction.We should cease emissions immediately and try to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.And we've lost at least 30-years due to corporo-government denial.
It's interesting.

[oil pan 4]

I just said the climate is changing.
First sentence of that post.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Humans are causing the climate to change this time, by burning fossil fuels. This is clear and there is no debate. All the evidence indicates this is the case.

He says at Permalink #1375.

[oil pan 4]

I like how climate change and what causes it has some how gone from being a hypothesis to surpassing known laws of science as far as not being open for debate.
That just means they are scared.
This line of thinking alone is telling us all we need to know.

[freebeard]

Dark Matter hypothesis never reached escape velocity, and is currently cratering.

[niky]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Dark Matter hypothesis never reached escape velocity, and is currently cratering.

Dark Matter is just a placeholder. A scientific way of saying: "Here there be something but we don't know what the hell it is, and we're not going to say 'Dragons' because that could be wrong. So we're going to call it Dark Matter because we know some kind of Matter is there, but we can't see it."

Also, not cratering, if you're referring to the news about the Galaxy that's supposedly lacking Dark Matter. It's all in the maths.

https://gizmodo.com/heated-debate-su...mat-1825292954

Originally Posted by sendler

World banking has been operating on a fractional (nearly creationist) model. Loans are created from thin air with no actual money taken out of circulation to balance it. The virtual money anihlates itself as it is paid back but the interest becomes real added debt. The only way this has always worked through all time, and continues to work, is if GDP growth outpaces the interest rates. If energy growth outpaces the interest rates. But there is a limit to growth on a planet with finite resources.

I missed this when it was posted, but QFT.

Even some rationalists I respect fall for the blue sky thinking of infinite economic and energy growth (science will find a way), without considering the practical limits of that.

I do miss "Do The Math". Wish that guy hadn't stopped posting.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That 95% figure is merely those who agree that human activity affects global temperatures (anthropogenic global warming). It says nothing concerning the degree to which people affect the climate, or what the consequences will be.

Most on here would agree that humans affect the environment, and that includes global climate, so that is relatively uncontroversial. The interesting part of the debate is to what degree do we impact it, what are the consequences (both good and bad), and what are reasonable steps to mitigate the negative consequences.

Even worse... that 97% was the number of studies on climate that pointed towards the strong anthropogenic effect... the other 3% of the studies in the metastudies on this don't necessarily reject anthropogenic effects on the climate... they reject the idea that anthropogenic emissions are the main driver.

But further consensus studies have shown those numbers to be closer to 98% to 99%... and these are by the people who actually DO know what they are talking about. Not talking heads like us or on YouTube.


Again, I used to be a skeptic. But new data over the past ten years has changed that. Taking all the natural cycles into account, the Earth should be cooling. But it isn't.

-----

We have released millions of years' worth of sequestered carbon within just the past hundred odd years. That will have a big effect on the climate, whether we like it or not. The question now is: Do we have enough resources to deal with the problem? Or is adapting to the inevitable change the only realistic way forward?