Global Warming is over.

[marshallnoise]

*eyeroll*

Got a talking to again?

[ELVA164]

Yikes

[decay]

You people are soft.

*eyeroll*

[Schnitzer318is]

About that 97%...

And that is a debate that CAN be had. The extent at which the planet is warming and the contributing factors can be debated for sure. And man's hand in that warming obviously as one of those factors. But so many deny climate change altogether and try to debate THAT. Which, as articles posted above show, is a non-debatable issue to anyone with a mind capable of looking at evidence. Sea level is rising, poles are warming, etc. The 97% is being used as a political tool. It's technically true, but misrepresented. However, the number 50% chosen by Cook to support that misrepresentation is itself a misrepresentation to arrive at 1.6%. If man is causing 20% of greenhouse gases, it's significant. Why choose 50%? We know why... to arrive at an equally jarring number as 97% but supporting the opposite point of view.

Oh, here's a relevant one: the effectiveness of vaccines for containing disease is a matter of scientific consensus, but that doesn't stop people from believing otherwise.

Ding, Ding, Ding. Some people, no matter what you show them, have just made up their minds and will plow through life unable to reason and grow. Unfortunately, those people breed and we end up with another generation of closed-minded automatons. This is how/why religion has survived through the ages. Why religious zealots/terrorists will always be a thing. Why racism/descrimination will always be a thing. You could go on and on.

[ELVA164]

Oh, here's a relevant one: the effectiveness of vaccines for containing disease is a matter of scientific consensus, but that doesn't stop people from believing otherwise.

[ELVA164]

Now you’ve gone and done it
Cale will go ballistic for bringing up the fallacy of the vaunted 97%

Anyone who brings up ANY kind of consensus in science understands nothing about science

I don't have a comment about this 97% thing, but your second statement makes no sense.

Scientific consensus is a real thing, and has nothing to do with the scientific process.

There is scientific consensus about the water cycle. There is scientific consensus about the speed of light (in a vacuum, unaffected by extreme cooling etc.). There is scientific consensus about the laws of thermodynamics. Might they all be proven wrong someday? Probably not, but potentially. Doesn't mean there isn't a consensus, and doesn't mean that consensus is somehow unscientific.

[gwb72tii]

About that 97%

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”


—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

and that doesn’t cover the generalized question he posed, which left out the phrase man made.

Now you’ve gone and done it
Cale will go ballistic for bringing up the fallacy of the vaunted 97%

Anyone who brings up ANY kind of consensus in science understands nothing about science

[cale]

You people are soft.

Beats staring into the sun

[naplesE30]

About that 97%

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”


—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

and that doesn’t cover the generalized question he posed, which left out the phrase man made.

[CarpHunter]

The whole flaw with the GW types is that they presume everything can be preserved through man's will alone. Good example is naming a piece of frozen tundra, permafrost. It's an arrogant name, derived from man in the first place. Nature certainly doesn't believe in permanence...why the fuck should we?

I don't think that's the flaw. It's the outright denial of science based on political ideology. Remember even those on the right were all for climate change, right up until the kock brothers threatened to cut off their funding. After that point the discussion moved from one of science to one of politics. Hell, they made the republicans sign pledges to deny climate change. That's pretty obviously politics, not science.

We're talking about over 10000 climate scientists, spanning every country on the globe, almost entirely saying the same things. Only in america is this a political issue, and only in america is there denial.

The common number is 97% of scientists say the same thing. Yet you have an entire political party going against science. If you went to 100 doctors, and 97 of them said you have cancer, but 3 said you didn't, which would you believe? Naturally the 97. What GW and his side does is say "well, those 97 doctors are Democrats so they must be lying". When it has nothing to do with political affiliation.

For all the folks who believe in evolution rationally, you deny that humans and the rest of nature can cope with climate change. You really should question your commitment to evolution as an ethos because that is a massive contradiction none of you can deal with.

This makes me think you know very little about evolution. Its not an over night process. It takes thousands of years with only slight variation in species. Science says modern humans have been around for roughly 250 thousand years. Yet today people still have neanderthal dna, we still have vestigial organs such as tailbones, wisdom teeth, ect.. These are things humans haven't needed for thousands of years, yet we still have them because we haven't had enough time to evolve them away completely as a species.

All of this in the name of something that all the scientists know without a doubt humans cannot convincingly move the needle. The course corrections they suggest do not do anything to help the environment.

You remember when humans put a hole in the ozone layer. Then humans banned the aerosol that caused it because scientists. Now the hole is closing up. So there are coarse corrections that will have actual impacts on the environment.

[marshallnoise]

The whole flaw with the GW types is that they presume everything can be preserved through man's will alone. Good example is naming a piece of frozen tundra, permafrost. It's an arrogant name, derived from man in the first place. Nature certainly doesn't believe in permanence...why the fuck should we?

The idea that nature is good and human is bad denies that we are part of nature in the first place. It's nihilism legislated. It's dangerous, homicidal and cruel.

For all the folks who believe in evolution rationally, you deny that humans and the rest of nature can cope with climate change. You really should question your commitment to evolution as an ethos because that is a massive contradiction none of you can deal with.

Or...and this is much more cynical...what if the global elite simply want to reduce the standard of living of the plebs and prevent third world countries from rising out of poverty so as to consolidate their power? I mean, the rich can afford carbon taxes. It will never hurt them. It only puts undue burden on normal families and third world countries that will be denied the opportunity to raise up their citizens standard of living. It's no different than Del Monte farms using the power of legislation to impose regulations on their own industry to squash smaller farms out of existence.

All of this in the name of something that all the scientists know without a doubt humans cannot convincingly move the needle. The course corrections they suggest do not do anything to help the environment.

So what this comes down to is this: do you trust that humans and nature can adapt to anything? Do you believe that all humans have value? Do you believe that people merely trying to not starve to death is reason enough to "ruin" the environment? Do you believe in freedom?

I think we need to bring back a threat of a thermonuclear holocaust so we can have a real issue to worry about and one that will actually have a permanent impact on the environment.

You people are soft.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[ELVA164]

It's obviously because God wants Russia to take over the western world.

I never trusted that guy anyway

[z31maniac]

It's obviously because God wants Russia to take over the western world.

[mbonder]

Russia is building a fleet of ice-breaker ships because the arctic ice is thinning to the point where they can now sail directly from Russia to Canada through the north pole.

How does one explain this without making any connection to global warming?

[decay]

yeah, alaska is particularly depressing to me for some reason.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140417-drunken-trees-melting-permafrost-global-warming-science/

trees are falling over. because their root systems depended on the permafrost they grow into for support, and it's disappearing.

say that one again. the permafrost, named that because it is *permanent*, is disappearing.