The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It all part of Saharasia, what else should we expect?

JAMES DEMEO: SAHARASIA

If you like big data, then consider "It employed standard cross-cultural correlation tables on over 60 different variables, plus geographical mapping and quadruple blind research procedures to insure objectivity, and all the basic starting assumptions are clearly elucidated in advance."

You certainly don't have to have a top secret clearance to know what's been happening for the last 6000 years. Radiating waves of misery.



That seems to be a recurring theme. Reconcile with this:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=atmospheric+carbon+from+volcanoes+vs+forest+fir es

Scanning the results suggests forest fires equals half of all fossil fuel or all the [ICE] cars. Volcanoes are "carbon neutral"(?) but can ruin your whole day.

New post 'Evidence'

I've been watching this channel on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Drachinifel

https://youtu.be/ar04557d1ZM

Is Demeo the latest stand-up comedian? Do you actually believe that you could possibly quantify such a thing? He's a moron.Arguing how many angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
You do need a top-secret security clearance to know what's really behind 'officialdom.'
Carbon dioxide from forest fires and volcanoes is nothing compared to anthropogenic emissions.

[redpoint5]

My quick search showed an average of 8B tons of CO2 emitted in forest fires each year vs 45B tons released by human activity.

What is the source that shows 15x all of earth's forests worth of CO2 is emitted by humans each year? That doesn't pass my sniff test.

[freebeard]

Is Demeo the latest stand-up comedian? Do you actually believe that you could possibly quantify such a thing? He's a moron.Arguing how many angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Not a comedian. A sociological researcher/scientist tarred with the same brush as Wilhem Reich. I have no opinion on who the moron is in this situation.

How do you quantify such a thing? You take the most extensive data sets available for research and map it globally, over time, at a finer granularity than anyone else has attempted.

Then you offer a trend analysis that matches the historical record and suffer ad hominem attacks. If your getting flak you know you're over the target.

You do need a top-secret security clearance to know what's really behind 'officialdom.'

Else you monitor open sources and know everything they know, by their actions. 'Oficialdom' is reduced in the current security environment to passing communications in the clear, on 8chan.

The choice to know will be yours.

[RedDevil]

Forest fires happen every year, and if left alone the same amount of carbon gets trapped by trees growing in clearances caused by fires in the previous years. So in essence forest fires do not add to the carbon in the atmosphere.

Unless the fires are used to clear land for other purposes, as sadly happens on a large scale. Then the land won't recapture the same amount of carbon in the coming years.
But that carbon addition is caused by human activity and should be accounted as such.

So if half the forest fires are to clear land, 4B of CO2 should be added to the 45B tally for human activuity, and the other 4B can be wiped as it is compensated by reforestation.

[oil pan 4]

Only 4% of Americans believe climate change, the environment and pollution are the most important problem.
It's actually up form 3%.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/mo...t-problem.aspx
So it's nearly a dead issue.

[sendler]

Hockey sticks everywhere. All highly correlated
.
https://medium.com/insurge-intellige...n-c04729ebe3b6
.

[Frank Lee]

I hope the deniers/don't carers are very young... so that they get to live with the imminent disasters (that are already here but will worsen).

[oil pan 4]

Whatever. I have been hearing the same dooms day crap for 25 years and we always have, 5, 10, 12 years ect and the world ends.
Can't believe people still fall for this crap even it's only 4%.

[RedDevil]

Poor leadership concerns 26% of people most.
But I wouldn't say that problem is 6.5 times as bad or as important as the effects of man-made climate change.

People react to what they see and hear all the time on the media. Climate change gets relatively low coverage.
So the poll only measures news coverage, not what the people think, or at least not what people would think if they weren't subjected to highly biased news coverage.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Whatever. I have been hearing the same dooms day crap for 25 years and we always have, 5, 10, 12 years ect and the world ends.
Can't believe people still fall for this crap even it's only 4%.

This is a handy mechanism for denial of limits to growth that I see misused frequently by those that can't apply a concept of deep time and want to see business as usual continue for as long as possible. Hominids have been around for 3 million years. Humans could be around for 200 million more if we do it right. Does it really repudiate the concept of carrying capacity if the dates for peak resource availability are pushed out by 30 years? The forecast of Hubbert's peak was actually fairly close to accurate given the information of the day from 60 years ago. He called for a global peak of oil production to occur in 2005. We have pushed past that by a couple decades for now via the then unknowable technology of fracking. But eventually oil will start to leave us long before we are ready to leave it.
.
The 1971 study of "Limits To Growth" had 15 years of better information and the charts are looking surprisingly accurate when overlaid with the actual values that occurred. They predicted peaks in the 2020-2030 time frame so have not been "proven as crap" yet.
.
.

.
.
There is new and unknowable tech that came into play even since 1971 but an important thing to consider is that advanced extraction technology and Modern Monetary Theory can pull resources forward in time to a higher peak but will lead to a steeper decline on the back side.