Global warming. T'is all BS...

Eyefor

Well-Known Member
CO2 and Where it Comes From:

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne , professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide , and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

Born - 12 Feb. 1946. Residence / Nationality - Australia

Fields - Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering Institutions - Univ. of New England , Univ. of Newcastle , Univ. of Melbourne , Univ. of AdelaideAlma Mater(s) - Univ. of New South Wales , Macquarie Univ

Notable Awards - Eureka Prize (1995), Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
————

Where does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesise into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know..it's very disheartening to realise that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast,
carbon.

And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.

Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognised 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.

Hey, isn't it interesting how "they" don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change'.

You know why?

It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
 

caorach

Well-Known Member
"Global warming" is nothing more than a pseudo-religious system of belief which is unsupported by science though supported by some people who call themselves "campaigning scientists." However, like most religions it is breeding extremism and in global terms may present as great a threat to freedom of thought and speech as anything that happened in Paris recently, for example. Take a look at the views of one of the global warming high priests professor Richard Parncutt and try telling me that, in terms of extremism, these people aren't right off the far end of the scale:

Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?
An objective argument…a conservative conclusion
Richard Parncutt : last updated 25 October 2012​

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.
For years, hard-nosed scientists have been predicting global warming (GW) and its devastating consequences. For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.com
Some accounts are clearly exaggerated (more). But given the inherent uncertainty surrounding climatic predictions, even exaggerated accounts must be considered possible, albeit with a low probability. Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.
When the earth’s temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines. Moreover, an unknown number may die from wars over diminishing resources (more). Even if that does not happen, thousands of plants and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear.
So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action (more). But action is urgently needed. We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world. What will it take to get people to sit up and listen?
Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog. The opinions of everyday GW deniers are evidently being driven by influential GW deniers who have a lot to lose if GW is taken seriously, such as executives in transnational oil corporations.
Of course it is possible that scientists are just making it up for their own benefit. The trouble with that argument is that scientists who publish fake data or deliberately set out to mislead people about GW have a lot to lose and nothing to win. When scientists fake data and are caught, that usually means the end of their career. It’s not the kind of risk that a scientist would like to take. It is possible someone is paying the scientists behind the scences to publish environmental doomsday stories, but again the argument is problematic: there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories (just like there is no money in writing internet pages like this one). And here is why: It has been clear for a long time that the cost of reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) will be enormous, and the costs incurred by not doing that or doing it too late will be many times greater. The main problem is that no-one wants to pay this money. As a rule, those who make money out of ignoring GW would rather leave this problem for our children and grandchildren to deal with. (How kind of them!) In this situation, a corrupt scientist can certainly earn a lot of money by publishing research that plays down the importance of GW, so that those who profit from ignoring it can continue their environmentally unfriendly activities – and presumably many scientists have already done so. But there is no money in publishing the uncomfortable truth about GW, except for the ordinary rewards that ordinary scientists get for publishing good research reports.
The problem gets even more uncomfortable when you consider the broader context. Even without GW (or ignoring the small amount that has happened so far), a billion people are living in poverty right now. Every five seconds a child is dying of hunger (more).The United Nations and diverse NGOs are trying to solve this problem, and making some progress. But political forces in the other direction are stronger. The strongest of these political forces is GW denial.
The death penalty
In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.
I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.
Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. Consider the politically motivated murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011. Of course the murderer does not deserve to live, and there is not the slightest doubt that he is guilty. But if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78. It would not bring the dead back to life. In fact, it would not achieve anything positive at all. I respect the families and friends of the victims if they feel differently about that. I am simply presenting what seems to me to be a logical argument.
GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.
My estimate of “hundreds of millions” is based on diverse scientific publications about GW. There are three important things to notice about those publications, in general. First, their authors are qualified to do the research. In general they worked hard and more than full-time for at least ten years before being in a position to participate credibly in research of that kind. They are not just writing stuff off their heads. Second, they do not generally stand to gain or lose anything if their research concludes that GW will be more or less serious than currently thought. They have a different motivation: they want their research to be published in a good academic journal so that people will read it and it will improve their career chances. As a rule that depends only on the quality of the research. Third, the authors of different studies are generally working independently of each other in different countries, universities and disciplines. If so many unbiased people independently come to a similar conclusion, the probability that that conclusion is wrong is negligible.
For decades, the tobacco lobby denied that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer, at the same time as countless research projects were presenting evidence to the contrary. How many deaths did tobacco denialism cause? Globally, lung cancer due to smoking claims one million lives per year. A significant proportion of these deaths is due to tobacco denialists who slowed attempts to slow down the rate of smoking. Those individuals may individually be responsible for tens or even hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind, such Breivik, should face the death penalty. Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism. GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths
Consider the following scenario. A suicidal genius develops the means to destroy most of the world’s population. A heroic woman turns up (could also be a man, if you prefer) and kills the villain just in time. Just like one of those superheroes comics. Even Amnesty International joins in congratulating the heroine. What else can they do? They are glad to be alive themselves.
From this example, it is clear that there is a dividing line somewhere between murders for which the death penalty is appropriate and murders for which it is inappropriate. I am proposing to make that dividing line concrete at about one million people. I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people. Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions. Please note also that I am only talking about prevention of future deaths – not punishment or revenge after the event.
That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms. It has been clear for decades that condoms are the best way to slow the spread of AIDS, which has so far claimed 30 million innocent lives. The number of people dying of AIDS would have been much smaller if the Catholic Church had changed its position on contraception in the 1980s, or any time since then. Because it did not, millions have died unnecessarily. There is a clear causal relationship between the Vatican’s continuing active discouragement of the use of condoms and the spead of AIDS, especially in Africa. We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death. I am talking about the current Pope, because his continuing refusal to make a significant change to the church’s position on contraception (more) will certainly result in millions of further unnecessary deaths from AIDS in the future. Since many of these deaths could be prevented relatively easily simply by changing the position of the Catholic church, which incidentally is one of the most influential political powers in Africa and elsewhere, we are talking about something remarkably similar to premeditated mass murder. Not the same, because the church does not want the affected people to die. But the numbers of people involved are so enormous that at some level it doesn’t matter any more whether the murder is premeditated or not. The position of the church is presumably also racist: if those dying from AIDS were not predominately black, the church would presumably have changed its position on contraception long ago. Just imagine 30 million white people dying from AIDS in Europe or North America, and you will see what I mean.
What about holocaust deniers? The Nazi holocaust was the worst crime in human history, for two reasons: the enormous number of murdered people and the automation of the murder process. Those who deny the holocaust certainly belong behind bars. The death penalty would be too much for them, because holocaust deniers are not directly causing the deaths of other people. The holocaust is in the past, not the future. Those who died in the holocaust cannot be brought back to life.
Counterarguments
In self defence, both the Catholic church and the GW deniers would point out straight away that they don’t intend to kill anyone. The Catholic church is merely of the opinion that contraception is generally a bad thing. The GW deniers are simply of the opinion that the GW scientists are wrong. Both groups are enjoying their freedom of speech and perhaps they sincerely believe what they are claiming. They can certainly cite lots of evidence (you can find evidence for just about anything if you look hard enough).
Another counterargument is that we can never be sure that the predicted GW will happen, or that its effects will be as severe as predicted. But this is not a strong argument. The courts are used to dealing with uncertainty. Even at the conclusion of a murder trial, there is generally some remaining uncertainty about the guilt of the accused, even if the court pretends that there is not. Courts must rely on eye-witness reports, but memories can be distorted and witnesses can have ulterior motives. That is why there are so many reports of executions of innocent people. In the case of GW, the case is clearer. Even if the prediction of hundreds of millions of deaths turns out to be exaggerated, the more moderate prediction of tens of millions will not.
For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. Probably more like a billion, but this is a conservative estimate. If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die. These are the numbers that GW deniers are playing with while exercising their “freedom of speech”. The number that the Catholics are playing with are an order of magnitude smaller, but still horrendously large. Since these figures exceed the arbitrary limit of one million that I am proposing, it follows that the death penalty might be an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers and possibly also the Pope. It also follows for example that George W. Bush and Tony Blair should not face the death penalty for the Iraq war, since it “only” claimed about 100 000 lives since 2003 (more).
Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. I am just thinking aloud about an important problem.
Lawyers will see this situation differently, of course. According to current law you cannot exact a criminal sentence of murder on someone for deaths that have not yet happened, and might not happen if – despite GW deniers – governments and people act to stop GW. Even conspiracy to murder depends on intent to murder, which clearly does not exist in this case. Then there is the question of in which judicial system someone could be tried and prosecuted. Given that the alleged victims of the criminal act are not confined to the country in which the GW denier lives, but are all over the world, then only an international court (perhaps the International Criminal Court) would do. I guess that right now there is no existing law, either national or international, under which such a prosecution could be pursued. Given the overriding importance of GW (just about everything else that we hold dear depends on it), I am proposing with this text a legal change that will make the criminal trial of GW deniers possible.
In such a trial, ignorance of scientific research would be no excuse. There is clear evidence that unprotected sex is causing the deaths of ten millions, and that GW deniers are causing the deaths of hundreds of millions. This evidence is freely available and constantly in the media. If the legal change that I am envisaging comes about, a future court of law will not accept the claim that the culprits simply did not know about this research.
Consequences
If my argument is correct, it has clear political consequences. Here is a scenario for what might happen if my argument is broadly accepted, both democratically and politically.

  • The universal declaration of human rights and every national constitution would be amended to include the rights of future generations. Incidentally, that would also make national debts illegal, because they oblige future generations to pay them. Getting rid of national debts would in turn solve an important aspect of the “global financial crisis” (more), which currently belongs to the list of common excuses for not investing money in the prevention of GW.
  • The proposed legal change would be announced and widely publicized for an extended period before it came into force. During that time, GW deniers would have a chance to change their ways and escape punishment.
  • The police would start to identify the most influential GW deniers who had not responded to the changed legal situation. These individuals would then be charged and brought to justice.
If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.
Outlook
Right now, in the year 2012, these ideas will seem quite crazy to most people. People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it. But there is already enough evidence on the table to allow me to make the following prediction: If someone found this document in the year 2050 and published it, it would find general support and admiration. People would say I was courageous to write the truth, for a change. Who knows, perhaps the Pope would even turn me into a saint. Presumably there will still be a Pope, and maybe by then he will even have realised that condoms are not such a bad thing! And by the way 2050 is rather soon. Most people reading this text will still be alive then.
I don’t want to be a saint. I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it. And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll. Does that make me crazy? I don’t think so. I am certainly far less crazy than those people today who are in favor of the death penalty for everyday cases of murder, in my opinion. And like them I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.
 

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
Archaeological records suggest that the climate is constantly fluctuating, perhaps the most remarkable thing is how stable it has been since the end of the last ice age.

atb Tim
 

Claret_Dabbler

Well-Known Member
Look and observe who the great advocates of global warming are, a bunch of academics in need of research funds and a shower of failed left wing politicians.

Looks to me that the advocates of Communism and Trotskyism went quiet for a few years after the fall of the Berlin wall and the exposure of the brutality of these regimes.

Then, behold, they became environmentalist - and they know as much about that as they did about economics.

Intellectually bankrupt shower of scum.
 
Last edited:

nun_hunter

Well-Known Member
Just in the way we don't get worked up about what happened 10,000 years ago the people (if there are any left) won't be getting worked up in 10,000 years about what happened now. Things change, nothing stays the same but it seems evey activist wants the world to be like it was 100 years ago. The world as a whole will survive but maybe not with people, I think it's a bit shallow and naive to believe we can alter the world to suit us for ever.

Climate change is the least of our worries with our ever increasing population, eventually there will be too many people to sustain just like any population boom in nature. Just think of the fenced nature reserves where the deer aren't culled and populations boom then suddenly start dying out due to a lack of resources.
 

Claret_Dabbler

Well-Known Member
There are already too many people, population control is the great taboo that cannot be discussed. At a minimum we need to stop the world's population from growing, and really reduce it by 2 Billion over the next 200 years. Otherwise, we are going to run out of resources, farmland etc.

Here's the punchline, the modern western economy is a giant Ponzi scheme which requires a growing population to keep afloat....
 

Pine Marten

Well-Known Member
There are already too many people, population control is the great taboo that cannot be discussed. At a minimum we need to stop the world's population from growing, and really reduce it by 2 Billion over the next 200 years. Otherwise, we are going to run out of resources, farmland etc.

Here's the punchline, the modern western economy is a giant Ponzi scheme which requires a growing population to keep afloat....
And who exactly is going to decide which 2bn are supernumerary, and then go and tell them the decision?
 

nun_hunter

Well-Known Member
And who exactly is going to decide which 2bn are supernumerary, and then go and tell them the decision?
And thats why no one actually suggests it as a viable (and realistically the only) choice. I don't think anyone would (should) suggest culling people but definitely some form of birth control is possible, I just have no idea how it would ever be implemented. Soylent Green anyone?
 

Alistair

Well-Known Member
I feel I am rather in the minority here, but I do believe that human activity has at least some influence on global climate. Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Admittedly this is wiki and therefore not usually to be trusted, but it is exceptionally well referenced and the source papers (see the bottom of the article) are from some fairly influential and respected journals.
On the subject of volcanism and its effects; yes, volcanoes spew an almost inconceivable amount of CO2 into our atmosphere (around 0.3-0.4 billion tonnes a year on average, accounting both sub sea and sub aerial sources Mörner and Etiope (2002)), as they always have done, but amazingly co2 in the atmosphere has remained fairly constant for at least 2million years. This suggests that this is accounted for by the carbon cycle and an equilibrium has been reached. Therefore this activity can be considered to be the natural baseline at which no change occurs. Notably, humans release an estimate of 30 billion tonnes of co2 every year (EIA), so whilst Yellowstone supervolcano possibly could release as much, normal volcanic eruptions cannot even get close (I'm not sure where the scientist in post number 1 got his info, but it doesn't seem widely supported in any scientific literature that I can find). Interestingly volcanic eruptions actually have a short term cooling effect due to the release of SO2 into the atmosphere. http://www.wunderground.com/climate/volcanoes.asp. Volcanoes will over the next billion years or so release less and less CO2 due to the Earths core using up all of its radioactive material and cooling, eventually leading to the end of all life as all of the co2 is stored in the crust. However, less us disregard volcanism for the time being, as it clearly has no net effect in even the million year timescales, and move on to human activity.
Human activity since the start of the industrial revolution pushed atmospheric CO2 from approx. 180parts per million to around 400ppm, the highest in 20 million years according to some sources, although more conservative estimates suggest that it is the highest in 3 million years. It is also rising by 2ppm every year. Now this is not necessarily the calamity that certain pro climate change scientists suggest, during the Cambrian period (approx 500million years ago) it was at more than 7000ppm, and life thrived. However, humans will certainly have a bad time of it within a thousand years at the current rate of increase, which is accelerating every year. Bear in mind that there is a cycle to CO2 levels, and the current period should be one of a rise anyway which may make the issue look worse than it actually is, but, and this is the problem, we have already significantly exceeded the projected high calculated from the previous 4 cycles (400,000 years) by 150% and it shows no signs of slowing (indeed the rate is increasing every year on average). What are the reasons for this? Whilst human activity is relatively small scale compared to geological processes, it is still statistically significant and is clearly enough to shift the equilibrium of the carbon cycle in favour of atmospheric CO2 over carbon sinks. This is made worse by our other activities such as fiddling with the ozone layer (now mostly rectified) and deforestation. It is important to bear in mind that most of the UK and large swathes of land across the world would be mature forest, especially in Europe, where it not for our activity, and whilst it is true that a cubic metre of fast growing crop biomass will take up significantly more atmospheric co2 than a cubic metre of woodland biomass, you get rather more cubic metres of tree and undergrowth per m2 of landmass than you do with turnips or oilseed rape. These are all facts, but now we come on to the real question; what will be the effects of this?
At this point there are no facts to go on. This is a scenario that has never before occurred on Earth and so little data exists. However we can make informed estimates based on modelling and what little info is available. This is becoming more accurate every year as more data is gathered. Firstly; CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is a strong correlation in the geological, fossil and ice core data to suggest that higher concentrations of CO2 allows more of the suns energy to be trapped, leading to higher global temperatures. There is also strong data to suggest that the oceans act as a carbon sink, slowing the increase in air temp, but becoming acidic in the process. This is already becoming an issue for certain corals which are being wiped out by more acidic and warmer oceans. Bear in mind of course that we are talking tiny, tiny changes here. A drop in pH of 0.01 and an increase in temp of tenths of a degree, but enough to upset highly adapted organisms who have been used to a almost entirely constant environment for millions of years in some cases. Also bear in mind that if every man woman and child on planet Earth were to drop a 1 megaton bomb in their nearest ocean tomorrow, the global ocean temperature would only increase by 1 degree centigrade (1 gram of water requires 1 joule to heat it by 1 degree centigrade under standard conditions, hooray for metric, certainly makes that calculation easier...) That is a ridiculous amount of energy. Of course how this relates to a specific nation or continent even is a source of great debate. We here in Britain are likely to experience net cooling due to the disruption of the jetstream, but this remains to be proven and as I have no practical knowledge of the subject I won't try and state it as fact. I also don't really understand the effect of various ocean currents and cycles on weather, so I wouldn't even try to predict that either, but we can say with certainty that things will change and only the most adaptable species, probably from equatorial areas will have a good time of it.
Of course, climate change is hardly humanities most pressing concern, rising populations and hunger are much more immediate, but a changing climate is unlikely to assist in that issue, and neither will wars over dwindling reserves of fossil fuels. I believe it is better to start looking into alternatives now, when it is just a small problem for the future, than to try and do so because we need to in order to survive.
I leave you with this thought; more than 99% of the scientific community supports the idea of climate change. They may all be wrong of course, and the great thing about science is that if evidence comes to light to support that, then they will change their positions, but if 99 architects told you your house was about to collapse and 1 said it was fine, would you let your kids sleep in it?
Alistair
 

Claret_Dabbler

Well-Known Member
And who exactly is going to decide which 2bn are supernumerary, and then go and tell them the decision?
Everyone - the whole world - needs to agree to limit the number of children they will have. It is absolutely brutal no doubt - the example of the one child policy in China is very distasteful.

The great challenge over the next couple of centuries wont be global warming, or climate change, but the utter depletion of the earth's wildlife and natural resources - driven by a huge and growing urban population who will need to be fed at the expense of every other species on the plant.

At this point I should declare my own hypocrisy - I have three kids.........
 

Alistair

Well-Known Member
..says who?

Where's the proven data for that statistic please?
My apologies, my recollection is flawed. It's actually 97.2%. I still think that the original point stands.
Here is the original paper
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
and here is a short explanation of the methodology
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
I should say now that skepticalscience gained lots of pulicity from publicising the article so there may be some bias in the tone of writing. The facts are correct though.
Alistair
 

jack

Well-Known Member
Well respected city fund manager Terry Smith also reckons it is bollox.

To quote:
"I have long been a sceptic of the quasi religious belief that there is man-made global warming and more particularly that many or any of the measures such as carbon trading, wind farms, solar energy or electric cars would be of any efficacy if there was or in many cases are any more than an outright fraud. I have come in for some vituperative comment and action from “Warmists” for this stance, even though I have never said that I don’t think there is climate change, but that I would like some unadulterated evidence a) that it exists; and b) that it is man-made, and if that is provided, some suggestions for dealing with it which might work rather than simply lining the pockets of those who exploit this. The media on climate change is so biased it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that the subject and the waste of scarce resources on cons which pose as solutions are quite serious."
http://terrysmithblog.com/
 

Eyefor

Well-Known Member
My apologies, my recollection is flawed. It's actually 97.2%. I still think that the original point stands.
Here is the original paper
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
and here is a short explanation of the methodology
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
I should say now that skepticalscience gained lots of pulicity from publicising the article so there may be some bias in the tone of writing.

The facts are correct though.

Alistair
..I just read the comments below the publication from those allegedly contacted and "Fake" and "remove me from your list" are hardly encouraging comments?

I think nobody knows the truth as the two sides seem so far apart.
 

caorach

Well-Known Member
My apologies, my recollection is flawed. It's actually 97.2%.
This is utterly flawed and is based on the propaganda produced by Oreskes which was debunked nearly 10 years ago, i hope these are the right links but am not going to spend any time tracking down the papers on something which was rubbished in the distant past so if not look it up for yourself, i think the paper was by MacIntyre and Peister:

Climate Audit

The 97% consensus myth busted by a real survey | Watts Up With That?

The other key point is that consensus means nothing in science - until Einstein came up with relativity everyone believed something different and, initially, only a single person believed Einstein was correct and later Einstein himself, and many others, rejected quantum physics when a small group did the maths to support it. So, the fact that every scientist on earth believes that something is true doesn't make it true. As it is the number who believe in the man made global warming religion is much, much smaller than the popular media would have you believe and I suspect its ranks are dwindling by the day.

Man made global warming is purely a pseudo-religious system of belief and this is why the numbers who believe are important, to the true believers, and why killing those who don't believe is seen by them as a legitimate way to do science. This is also why it has to undergo frequent rebranding when the physical evidence directly contradicts the system of belief - hence the change from "global warming " to "climate change" when there was no warming. As we can see by the media paranoia about simple, normal, weather events the one true religion is undergoing another "rebranding" and will simply be called "weather" in future and the true believers will assert that any weather condition is the fault of capitalism, or consumerism, or people who don't recycle, or people with a car, or people who want to be free to mind their own business, or just about anyone who doesn't buy into their religion. As you can see from the item I posted earlier their plan is to kill these people for their sins.
 

Top