UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[Phatscotty]

Just tell me this global warming people. Were all the 95% of scientists wrong in calling it global warming when the earth was actually cooling? More like 95% of scientists were working with inaccurate information.

Thank God the Nazi's did not force everyone to believe their bs 'results' 15 years ago.

The Earth, overall is NOT cooling. Scientist, real ones, are all in full agreement over that.
The only disputers are those who wish to ignore hard work needed to correct things.

Actually, they aren't in agreement, but I'm guessing any scientist who does not agree with you is not a 'real' scientist. This really is some Nazi shit.

If the globe is warming/not cooling, then why did all the 'real' scientists stop calling it global warming and start calling it climate change?

Please explain the Nazi connection. It will be fun. I promise to read every word of it.

Try engaging in the subject matter once. You may find the answer will reveal itself immediately.

[Metsfanmax]

Just tell me this global warming people. Were all the 95% of scientists wrong in calling it global warming when the earth was actually cooling? More like 95% of scientists were working with inaccurate information.

Thank God the Nazi's did not force everyone to believe their bs 'results' 15 years ago.

The Earth, overall is NOT cooling. Scientist, real ones, are all in full agreement over that.
The only disputers are those who wish to ignore hard work needed to correct things.

Actually, they aren't in agreement, but I'm guessing any scientist who does not agree with you is not a 'real' scientist. This really is some Nazi shit.

Virtually zero climate scientists don't agree with that. If you consulted 100 doctors and 97* told you that you had cancer, would you call them Nazis for insisting you get treatment because there were three that didn't?

*The 97% figure refers to climate scientists who believe that humans are responsible for global warming. There are some who believe that humans aren't responsible, but there are essentially zero climate scientists who don't think the Earth is warmer now than it has been in previous decades.

If the globe is warming/not cooling, then why did all the 'real' scientists stop calling it global warming and start calling it climate change?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.[15] Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the Bush administration did after that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.[16]

[Lindax]

Ok, let's turn this around for a minute:

Would there be any climate change, or heating up/cooling down of the planet if humans were not around?

The obvious answer is yes. So, did humans cause climate change? Of course not. They undoubtedly had some influence on it, true enough, but cause it?

Oh yeah, wikipedia is really a great source of information, hardly scientific though.

Lx

[Metsfanmax]

Ok, let's turn this around for a minute:

Would there be any climate change, or heating up/cooling down of the planet if humans were not around?

The obvious answer is yes. So, did humans cause climate change? Of course not. They undoubtedly had some influence on it, true enough, but cause it?

What exactly do you mean by "cause climate change?" This is not an issue that can be settled by semantics, and it's disingenuous to suggest that we can learn anything about this with word play. The real question, is there evidence that humans are substantially influencing the global climate? The answer is yes, and more importantly, that influence is not good for us. That's all that matters.

Oh yeah, wikipedia is really a great source of information, hardly scientific though.

I wasn't using it as a reference on the science. I was disproving the implication that it was climate scientists who had the idea of changing terminology.

[Neoteny]

Climate changes, therefore not humans.

Geeeeeeniuuuuuuussss

[Lindax]

Ok, let's turn this around for a minute:

Would there be any climate change, or heating up/cooling down of the planet if humans were not around?

The obvious answer is yes. So, did humans cause climate change? Of course not. They undoubtedly had some influence on it, true enough, but cause it?

What exactly do you mean by "cause climate change?" This is not an issue that can be settled by semantics, and it's disingenuous to suggest that we can learn anything about this with word play. The real question, is there evidence that humans are substantially influencing the global climate? The answer is yes, and more importantly, that influence is not good for us. That's all that matters.

Oh yeah, wikipedia is really a great source of information, hardly scientific though.

I wasn't using it as a reference on the science. I was disproving the implication that it was climate scientists who had the idea of changing terminology.

Glad to see we agree for a change. Except for the words "substantially" and "not". To think humans can substantially influence the global climate is extremely arrogant.

Climate change happens, and yes, humans influence it. If you say we substantially influence it, are you suggesting that we can also turn it around? I say we can't. We can slow or speed up global warming or cooling, to a degree (pun intended), but not turn it around.

I guess now you're going to ask now what I exactly mean by "substantially" and "extremely".

Lx

[Metsfanmax]

Glad to see we agree for a change. Except for the words "substantially" and "not". To think humans can substantially influence the global climate is extremely arrogant.

To think that you can figure out how the global climate works simply by intuition is extremely arrogant. Lots of hard-working climate scientists have been trying to understand our climate for decades, and they're still working to uncover many of the details. If it takes that much effort to understand, how can you be confident in your claim? So it's only arrogant to think humans can substantially* influence the global climate if you make that claim without having studied the evidence.

*Substantially means enough to endanger humans, which is what really matters.

Climate change happens, and yes, humans influence it. If you say we substantially influence it, are you suggesting that we can also turn it around? I say we can't. We can slow or speed up global warming or cooling, to a degree (pun intended), but not turn it around.

Depends on what you mean by "turn it around." It's best to think about what will happen to our climate at given concentrations of carbon dioxide. The higher the concentration, the more the temperature increases. With current technology, all we can really do is mitigate the change: if we sharply reduced our carbon dioxide emissions over the next several decades, we would limit the concentration increase. With future technology, it may actually be possible to capture carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in large quantities, and decrease the concentration (in a sense, therefore, turning it around). (Also, carbon dioxide doesn't stay in the atmosphere permanently, but it's hard to know how long it takes to disappear, and it's certainly in the hundreds of years.)

[Lindax]

Glad to see we agree for a change. Except for the words "substantially" and "not". To think humans can substantially influence the global climate is extremely arrogant.

To think that you can figure out how the global climate works simply by intuition is extremely arrogant. Lots of hard-working climate scientists have been trying to understand our climate for decades, and they're still working to uncover many of the details. If it takes that much effort to understand, how can you be confident in your claim? So it's only arrogant to think humans can substantially* influence the global climate if you make that claim without having studied the evidence.

*Substantially means enough to endanger humans, which is what really matters.

Climate change happens, and yes, humans influence it. If you say we substantially influence it, are you suggesting that we can also turn it around? I say we can't. We can slow or speed up global warming or cooling, to a degree (pun intended), but not turn it around.

Depends on what you mean by "turn it around." It's best to think about what will happen to our climate at given concentrations of carbon dioxide. The higher the concentration, the more the temperature increases. With current technology, all we can really do is mitigate the change: if we sharply reduced our carbon dioxide emissions over the next several decades, we would limit the concentration increase. With future technology, it may actually be possible to capture carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in large quantities, and decrease the concentration (in a sense, therefore, turning it around). (Also, carbon dioxide doesn't stay in the atmosphere permanently, but it's hard to know how long it takes to disappear, and it's certainly in the hundreds of years.)

You're assuming a lot here mate. Maybe as much as I am. Here's a question for you: Do you think there will be another ice-age in the future?

Lx

[Metsfanmax]

Glad to see we agree for a change. Except for the words "substantially" and "not". To think humans can substantially influence the global climate is extremely arrogant.

To think that you can figure out how the global climate works simply by intuition is extremely arrogant. Lots of hard-working climate scientists have been trying to understand our climate for decades, and they're still working to uncover many of the details. If it takes that much effort to understand, how can you be confident in your claim? So it's only arrogant to think humans can substantially* influence the global climate if you make that claim without having studied the evidence.

*Substantially means enough to endanger humans, which is what really matters.

Climate change happens, and yes, humans influence it. If you say we substantially influence it, are you suggesting that we can also turn it around? I say we can't. We can slow or speed up global warming or cooling, to a degree (pun intended), but not turn it around.

Depends on what you mean by "turn it around." It's best to think about what will happen to our climate at given concentrations of carbon dioxide. The higher the concentration, the more the temperature increases. With current technology, all we can really do is mitigate the change: if we sharply reduced our carbon dioxide emissions over the next several decades, we would limit the concentration increase. With future technology, it may actually be possible to capture carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in large quantities, and decrease the concentration (in a sense, therefore, turning it around). (Also, carbon dioxide doesn't stay in the atmosphere permanently, but it's hard to know how long it takes to disappear, and it's certainly in the hundreds of years.)

You're assuming a lot here mate. Maybe as much as I am.

Such as? I haven't said anything that's not backed up by the scientific literature.

Here's a question for you: Do you think there will be another ice-age in the future?

Lx

The existence of cycles of ice ages is a relatively well-understood feature of the climate. Climate scientists agree on this. There is little doubt that there will be many ice ages in the future, as there have been in the past.

[Lindax]

Glad to see we agree for a change. Except for the words "substantially" and "not". To think humans can substantially influence the global climate is extremely arrogant.

To think that you can figure out how the global climate works simply by intuition is extremely arrogant. Lots of hard-working climate scientists have been trying to understand our climate for decades, and they're still working to uncover many of the details. If it takes that much effort to understand, how can you be confident in your claim? So it's only arrogant to think humans can substantially* influence the global climate if you make that claim without having studied the evidence.

*Substantially means enough to endanger humans, which is what really matters.

Climate change happens, and yes, humans influence it. If you say we substantially influence it, are you suggesting that we can also turn it around? I say we can't. We can slow or speed up global warming or cooling, to a degree (pun intended), but not turn it around.

Depends on what you mean by "turn it around." It's best to think about what will happen to our climate at given concentrations of carbon dioxide. The higher the concentration, the more the temperature increases. With current technology, all we can really do is mitigate the change: if we sharply reduced our carbon dioxide emissions over the next several decades, we would limit the concentration increase. With future technology, it may actually be possible to capture carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in large quantities, and decrease the concentration (in a sense, therefore, turning it around). (Also, carbon dioxide doesn't stay in the atmosphere permanently, but it's hard to know how long it takes to disappear, and it's certainly in the hundreds of years.)

You're assuming a lot here mate. Maybe as much as I am.

Such as? I haven't said anything that's not backed up by the scientific literature.

Here's a question for you: Do you think there will be another ice-age in the future?

Lx

The existence of cycles of ice ages is a relatively well-understood feature of the climate. Climate scientists agree on this. There is little doubt that there will be many ice ages in the future, as there have been in the past.

That is precisely my point. Simply looking at the big picture. And there is nothing we can do about it. At least not in the near future.

Lx

[Metsfanmax]

The existence of cycles of ice ages is a relatively well-understood feature of the climate. Climate scientists agree on this. There is little doubt that there will be many ice ages in the future, as there have been in the past.

That is precisely my point. Simply looking at the big picture. And there is nothing we can do about it. At least not in the near future.

Lx

The "big picture" is over tens of thousands of years. Yes, if humanity is still around when the next ice age hits we'll have to deal with that, and it will be a major change (but we'll also have much better technology). That doesn't mean we should be intentionally harming ourselves now.

[Phatscotty]

The existence of cycles of ice ages is a relatively well-understood feature of the climate. Climate scientists agree on this. There is little doubt that there will be many ice ages in the future, as there have been in the past.

That is precisely my point. Simply looking at the big picture. And there is nothing we can do about it. At least not in the near future.

Lx

The "big picture" is over tens of thousands of years. Yes, if humanity is still around when the next ice age hits we'll have to deal with that, and it will be a major change (but we'll also have much better technology). That doesn't mean we should be intentionally harming ourselves now.

I'm not harmed. Are you? Who is harmed?

[Lindax]

The existence of cycles of ice ages is a relatively well-understood feature of the climate. Climate scientists agree on this. There is little doubt that there will be many ice ages in the future, as there have been in the past.

That is precisely my point. Simply looking at the big picture. And there is nothing we can do about it. At least not in the near future.

Lx

The "big picture" is over tens of thousands of years. Yes, if humanity is still around when the next ice age hits we'll have to deal with that, and it will be a major change (but we'll also have much better technology). That doesn't mean we should be intentionally harming ourselves now.

I'm not harmed. Are you? Who is harmed?

Exactly. I'm not. And humanity is not my responsibility. I got thrown on this planet and I intend to make the best of it while I'm around.

Which, incidentally, doesn't mean I don't care about others. I just don't care about "climate change".


Lx

[Neoteny]

It's cool bro. f*ck everyone else. Just roll with it.

[PLAYER57832]

The existence of cycles of ice ages is a relatively well-understood feature of the climate. Climate scientists agree on this. There is little doubt that there will be many ice ages in the future, as there have been in the past.

That is precisely my point. Simply looking at the big picture. And there is nothing we can do about it. At least not in the near future.

Lx

The "big picture" is over tens of thousands of years. Yes, if humanity is still around when the next ice age hits we'll have to deal with that, and it will be a major change (but we'll also have much better technology). That doesn't mean we should be intentionally harming ourselves now.

I'm not harmed. Are you? Who is harmed?

Exactly. I'm not. And humanity is not my responsibility. I got thrown on this planet and I intend to make the best of it while I'm around.

Which, incidentally, doesn't mean I don't care about others. I just don't care about "climate change".


Lx

I see, so you don't think that anyone should worry about termites until there house actually collapses? After all, you don't feel any harm until the walls start having holes!

You ARE being impacted by global climate change already, but the impact is being masked by various factors in modern living -- just like the damage from termites is hidden from view for a long time to surface observation, but is still there and detectable if you know how to look.

That a bunch of people who make money from keeping folks happy are happy to send your eyes away from real problems doesn't mean the problems are gone.

[PLAYER57832]

Just tell me this global warming people. Were all the 95% of scientists wrong in calling it global warming when the earth was actually cooling? More like 95% of scientists were working with inaccurate information.

Thank God the Nazi's did not force everyone to believe their bs 'results' 15 years ago.

The Earth, overall is NOT cooling. Scientist, real ones, are all in full agreement over that.
The only disputers are those who wish to ignore hard work needed to correct things.

Actually, they aren't in agreement, but I'm guessing any scientist who does not agree with you is not a 'real' scientist. This really is some Nazi shit.

If the globe is warming/not cooling, then why did all the 'real' scientists stop calling it global warming and start calling it climate change?

To take the last first, you demonstrate quite well why..because scientists know anything as large as world climate is not simple, not linear. Too many people, however see the term"global warming" and think that if their local temperature isnt constantly rising in a uniform manner,with no decrases -- the theory has failed. Its not the science that has failed,its non-scientist,many with a lot to gain from misinformation, who put forward skewed information. The OVERALL impact is a gradual warming, and no..there really isn't any dispute over that. The dispute is over the timeline and exactly how it will impact us all. PART of the impact is worse winters in some areas,for example.

Its not the theories, the science that has failed, its that too many people are too lazy to do more than look at a few headlines.

So, no... there is no real disagreement, other than less than a dozen scientists who have mostly been discredited. i remember 2 in particularly repeatedly brought forward in this forum who were funded by petroleum companies and not even climate specialists.

But..unlike you, i look into people's records and their research before passing judgements,whether I agree or disagree initially with their findings.

[_sabotage_]

Player et al,

You guys are operating on an information deficit. We have the means to cut our emissions way beyond any called for limits, but we choose not to. We insist biodiesel be added to diesel, which is scientific and useful and then we go about producing the biodiesel in the worst possible way, on the worst possible land using the worst possible product. The net outcome is negative to the proposed benefits...

We follow the same pattern with energy production, construction, transport, and production and then we turn around and say, we are fucking up everything, so we have to tax you. This is no different from breaking your window and then demanding protection money.

I don't want to buy a tv every 3-5 years, but manufacturers can't make money on one that lasts 20-30 years. It is funny when I hear the "reasons" for the Great Depression; why have they stopped talking about the fact that the products were too well made which prevented repeat consumption? We encourage "growth" but growth just means greater consumption.

In Canada, have our fuel costs go to the government as tax. That's a few hundred billion they get for preventing a competing energy each year. Do you really think this and other governments are going to lose their free money by

A. Helping to greatly improve fuel consumption,
B. Allow for an alternate fuel that can't be taxed,
C. Provide adequate mass transportation?

The answer is that they can control us when we are dependent and our dependence alone gives them power. They will maintain and grow our dependence and "climate change" is just a marketing scheme to do so.

I was driving through town the other day looking for a restaurant. Power was out for the third time this week. Listening to the radio, we got a brief shout out, they said that 4000 people in Nova Scotia were without power. They went on to talk about fallen trees and strong winds and big storms. The next piece was on a tiny town in PEI that couldn't keep up with the snow. The next piece was on a guy who had been imprisoned in Russia because of protesting climate change on oil rigs in the arctic.

If we break the report down we see:

Weather is changing, it can't be dealt with on a local level, it is causing mass problems and it isn't sufficiently recognized worldwide but people are suffering to bring about its recognition.

Unfortunately, as I drove through town, down the one main road that leads from a town into mine and links another at the other end, I could see no fallen trees, the storm was no worse than those twenty years ago, there was a single maintenance guy working on the problem.

So I must ask myself, does the story ring true, did fallen trees, which were not evident, in a storm which is common place to the area cause the power outage or did a massive corporation leave our power out for a day to use as a marketing piece by which they can earn mass amounts of money and power? Why was the radio piece edited to fit such a nice conditioning story? Why have media been grossly exaggerating weather for the last few years?

There are simple solutions to the situation, but the situation must be understood to apply them. The situation is twofold, pollution and our ability to adapt to weather. Pollution exists in many forms and the current system of tackling climate change is increasing pollution and adding it to new invasive arenas, something we should all be immediately concerned about. But it is not add one iota to our ability to live in various climates. We have mini ice ages and greater ones with great frequency which conversely means we have frequent warming. Creating simply, scalable, community based means of maximizing locally available resources is our only way of enhancing our ability to thrive in different climates, but this creates an independent populace, which is the Achilles heal of the government.

Believe all the BS you want about climate change, but when presented with a proposal on combatting it, consider the relevance and the consequences. At the moment, they are poisoning our land, air and water with heavy metals to the benefit of Monsanto and friends- such as the medical field- and harming you and yours. And you are shouting the sky is falling for them whenever they throw an acorn at your head.

[PLAYER57832]

Player et al,

You guys are operating on an information deficit. We have the means to cut our emissions way beyond any called for limits, but we choose not to. We insist biodiesel be added to diesel, which is scientific and useful and then we go about producing the biodiesel in the worst possible way, on the worst possible land using the worst possible product. The net outcome is negative to the proposed benefits...

Actually, several of us have stated that many times.

Believe all the BS you want about climate change, but when presented with a proposal on combatting it, consider the relevance and the consequences. At the moment, they are poisoning our land, air and water with heavy metals to the benefit of Monsanto and friends- such as the medical field- and harming you and yours. And you are shouting the sky is falling for them whenever they throw an acorn at your head.

You sort of hit the nail on the REAL head here, but you, too, are concentrating on just a few factors.

What has to happen is a comprehensive world view, one that holds everyone -- not just oil companies or medical companies or other chemical manufacturers, but everyone cognisent of and responsible for ALL impacts.

This is the difference between a "family" farmer who lives on the land and lays out plans to pass it on, and the stockholder -driven "profits NOW... screw anything else" attitude. A lot of what farmers have done, do can be harmful, BUT, intelligent farmers historically pay attention and learn. They make mistakes, but don't deny they are mistakes (as a group,individuals naturally differ).

Too many operations of all kinds today are so far removed from any such thinking, they are mere mechanisms to make a few people money -- its no wonder destruction ensues. Of course, to Phatt and Nightstrike,BBS any such talk is anti competition,anti freedom, etc, etc. If you see the only options as full blown communism or market systems, then your world doesn't allow for importance of consequence. It all becomes, not a study of anything, not an investigation into what would really be best, but is merely a matter of comnpeting self interests.

If you want to REALLY understand the state of our world and begin seeing long term solutions, then try starting with water. When you understand what is happening with the water in this world, you can begin to understand what is happening in the world overall.

[Phatscotty]

Just tell me this global warming people. Were all the 95% of scientists wrong in calling it global warming when the earth was actually cooling? More like 95% of scientists were working with inaccurate information.

Thank God the Nazi's did not force everyone to believe their bs 'results' 15 years ago.

The Earth, overall is NOT cooling. Scientist, real ones, are all in full agreement over that.
The only disputers are those who wish to ignore hard work needed to correct things.

Actually, they aren't in agreement, but I'm guessing any scientist who does not agree with you is not a 'real' scientist. This really is some Nazi shit.

Virtually zero climate scientists don't agree with that. If you consulted 100 doctors and 97* told you that you had cancer, would you call them Nazis for insisting you get treatment because there were three that didn't?

*The 97% figure refers to climate scientists who believe that humans are responsible for global warming. There are some who believe that humans aren't responsible, but there are essentially zero climate scientists who don't think the Earth is warmer now than it has been in previous decades.

If the globe is warming/not cooling, then why did all the 'real' scientists stop calling it global warming and start calling it climate change?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.[15] Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the Bush administration did after that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.[16]

As I've said a million times, I agree with those scientists as well....that humans have an impact. But that doesn't really confirm anything other than it would be silly to argue that humans have less than .00001% impact. But, as usual, this doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about, which was the cooling of the earth. I noticed you shared a link about the earth being warmer, and here is where I would normally post 1 of thousands of links, studies, or articles showing evidence the earth has been cooling, yet nothing would change each others mind. So it is pointless here.

Personally, I think the sun cycles have more to do with our climate than anything, and any human activity which I would describe as 'pollution' impact would start with China, certainly not with the United States.

[Metsfanmax]

Personally, I think the sun cycles have more to do with our climate than anything

Based on what? Your extensive reading of Anthony Watts' blog?

[Phatscotty]

It's cool bro. f*ck everyone else. Just roll with it.

If that's what you need to believe about anyone who disagrees...Demonize on!!!

[Phatscotty]

Personally, I think the sun cycles have more to do with our climate than anything

Based on what? Your extensive reading of Anthony Watts' blog?

If you are prepared to go on about how the earth is not impacted by the sun, I'm all ears. But I'm pretty sure I don't need to post a link for anyone 'proving' that the sun impacts the climate on earth.

[Metsfanmax]

Personally, I think the sun cycles have more to do with our climate than anything

Based on what? Your extensive reading of Anthony Watts' blog?

If you are prepared to go on about how the earth is not impacted by the sun, I'm all ears. But I'm pretty sure I don't need to post a link for anyone 'proving' that the sun impacts the climate on earth.

You implied that solar cycles are more important for our climate than anthropogenic greenhouse gases. What is your source for that, and precisely what solar cycles are you referring to?

[Phatscotty]

Personally, I think the sun cycles have more to do with our climate than anything

Based on what? Your extensive reading of Anthony Watts' blog?

If you are prepared to go on about how the earth is not impacted by the sun, I'm all ears. But I'm pretty sure I don't need to post a link for anyone 'proving' that the sun impacts the climate on earth.

You implied that solar cycles are more important for our climate than anthropogenic greenhouse gases. What is your source for that, and precisely what solar cycles are you referring to?

Except I already know it doesn't matter to you what I post in response. Wouldn't I just be wasting my time? I'm not asking for all your links, because I already know what they say. Don't you already know the argument for solar cycles? Then why ask for them as if this is the first time you heard of it? You are only hoping I post something that you can take apart, regardless of what's in it. Like that church thing

Or, to try another tactic I witnessed in the gun thread "this thread isn't about the chemical makeup of stars, so it should be moved"

[Metsfanmax]

Except I already know it doesn't matter to you what I post in response. Wouldn't I just be wasting my time? I'm not asking for all your links, because I already know what they say. Don't you already know the argument for solar cycles? Then why ask for them as if this is the first time you heard of it?

Of course it matters to me; why else would I be asking? The whole point here is to understand what your perspective is. Particularly, I'm interested if you know "the argument for solar cycles" (whatever that is). I can't have a discussion with you if I don't know what it is you actually believe. It's not like there's a single consistent climate change denier narrative; there's multiple (usually conflicting) perspectives, so I can't just know what you're thinking by saying "solar cycles."

Or, to try another tactic I witnessed in the gun thread "this thread isn't about the chemical makeup of stars, so it should be moved"

This thread is about whether climate change is caused by humans. So, a discussion about possible explanations demonstrating that it is not, is quite relevant.