Climate change, doomsday and the ‘inevitable’ extinction of humankind

unclefred

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
6,731
Oregon coastal mountains
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position. [1]

To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

LiveLeak.com - Deceitful claim: 97% of climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming
 

davu

Ad Honorem
Jun 2010
4,078
Retired - This Mountain isn't on a Map
Originally Posted by unclefred

The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it.
i really don't think the "pundits" really want to pay that close to the "facts" -- might call for a rational decision --

its probably better if they would report more on the weather - they are missing some interesting trends --- 1) all of the hurricans are tracking to the east because of the jet stream doing a more easterly loop and 2) the "new" violence of the tornados and 3) it seems there is a more "increase" in the amount of water (rain) that is stored when they do make landfall (the northeast)
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,546
Amelia, Virginia, USA
its probably better if they would report more on the weather - they are missing some interesting trends --- 1) all of the hurricans are tracking to the east because of the jet stream doing a more easterly loop and 2) the "new" violence of the tornados and 3) it seems there is a more "increase" in the amount of water (rain) that is stored when they do make landfall (the northeast)
Drawing conclusions from just a few seasons is risky. It could be part of a new trend, or it could be just variations within the normal range.
no body is really talking about "bottled water" -- 20 years ago this would have been the laughing stock of the country now its accepted as necessary -- this tells me the water supplies are polluted
I think you'll find the vast majority of bottled water is sold to people who don't need it. Marketing, is all that is. Bottled water is a very profitable industry, and what is surprising is the number of people willing to pay for something they generally get for free, or at least for pennies a gallon.
also, the grain and corn we have -- they need a defined growth period -- very shortly here they won't be getting it -- look at texas and the dry year -
How do you know that "very shortly" the growing season will be so short that crops can't grow?
Drought is a part of life in the Southwest, which has long been known as having an "arid" climate. Again, drawing long term conclusions from a few years is risky when it comes to climate, which varies on a scale of decades and even centuries, and probably longer.
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,756
Australia
It restores my faith in humanity to visit a site where most of the posters are rational thinkers and not blindly obedient worshippers at the altar of man made climate change. The real danger posed by the climate change doomsayers is that their obsession is causing us to neglect the environmental issues we can influence. Overpopulation, deforestation, chemical pollution etc.
 

davu

Ad Honorem
Jun 2010
4,078
Retired - This Mountain isn't on a Map
Originally Posted by balgarion
Overpopulation, deforestation, chemical pollution etc
whoa - horsey -- are we going after all of the "hot" points in one posting -- :eek:

as far as rebuttals to my previous comments -- just pointing out that if the weather patterns do continue to digress from the norm or what we have been used to for the last 50 years, things will get worse -- i make no conclusion based on "one" year --- but from what i have found out -- the "jet" stream is one of the most important things we have in this country -- if it tracks north then the south cooks which is happening right now, and the hurricans track to the east -- if the jet stream tracks to the south -- the loop goes north in the mideast states like kentucky/ohio/west new york -- if that happens then the warm air is sucked in at the eastern seaboard -- the rest is easy to figure out --

i am doing some reading on the weather patterns of the dust bowl -- the real problem is the "jet" stream wasn't discovered until the japs started to drop balloon bombs on Oregon in WW2 --- therefore, we have no wind patterns -- just temps, also we have no real data on the aquifers,

they say just the farming techniques saved the day, but the bowl lasted for about 10 years --- what saved the day is rains came back --- which brings to mind --- el nino --- i have a book on my list about this but i have a brain that can only handle 5 hours of history a day --- then i start to see roman soldiers coming through the front door with the knights templar close behind -- then i wake up in a cold sweat and go to bed --- :suspicious::suspicious:
 

MrKap

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
2,353
Maybe Air Pollution is the only thing that matters.

Canada News: CMA sees sharp rise in air pollution deaths - thestar.com

"The association says 21,000 Canadians, mostly seniors, will die this year from a combination of short- and long-term exposure to air pollution. It predicts the annual death toll will rise 83 per cent to 39,000 deaths a year by 2031."


Think of it this way. Maybe Carbon Dioxide is completely harmless.


-----------------

Sort of sold on Climate Change being largely natural. Not saying it is the only contributor, but the concept of solar maximum and minimums effecting the Earths weather seems right. It doesn't make it true, of course. But...

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation"]Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Makes me wonder if there are even fluctuations of heat in the Earths core emissions. Does anyone monitor how much heat comes from Black Smokers, Hydro Thermal vents, ect???

When the Oceans heat, Carbon Dioxide is released. Maybe that contributes a bit.


Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought.html


"The oceans capture around 30 per cent of human carbon dioxide emissions and hide it in their depths. This slows the march of global warming somewhat. But climate records from the end of the last ice age show that as temperatures climb, the trend reverses and the oceans emit CO2, which exacerbates warming."
 
Last edited:
Jun 2010
401
Rhondda, South Wales
So are you saying that the 97% of climatologists who think man is causing global warming have just made that assumption based on arrogance, rather than basing that position on evidence?
Yes, evidence from the past few decades in a world that's around 4.5billion years old. Some might argue that this is far too small a period of time to base a claim of any description on, and ignores the simple fact that historically the climate hasn't been exactly as it is today...the world has had periods where it's been warmer than today, and periods where it's been much colder than today.
Send your average climatologist back to between 950 and 1100, and they'll most likely tell you exactly the same...that we're all doomed, and that we must stop using horses and cows because of the methane they pump into the atmosphere. The Medieval Warm Period was showing temperatures just a fraction of a degree celsius lower than the average for the 20th century, and indeed rather than leading to a massive rise in following centuries was instead followed by the Little Ice Age. As I've said, CO2 levels haven't helped...but it's naive to think that humanity is the one and only reason for the rise in global temperatures. Maybe just maybe nature has much more to do with it than a species that in the grand scheme of things is a newcomer to this planet.
 

MrKap

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
2,353
Solar Minimum - [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum"]Solar maximum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]




[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs"]River Thames frost fairs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


From 1400 into the 19th century, there were 24 winters in which the Thames was recorded to have frozen over at London; if "more or less frozen over" years (in parentheses) are included, the number is 26: 1408, 1435, 1506, 1514, 1537, 1565, 1595, 1608, 1621, 1635, 1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1677, 1684, 1695, 1709, 1716, 1740, (1768), 1776, (1785), 1788, 1795, and 1814.


So maybe it doesn't correlate exactly, but it is close, and it is interesting none the less. Maybe some volcanic activity, or something else contributed to it?


I mean, the Sun is fairly new, in terms of advanced technology finally getting a chance to scrutinize what is happening with it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3u_0NN7OM"]Simply Amazing Solar Prominence Eruption! - YouTube[/ame]

They've only just gotten stereo imaging satelites into position recently, and that above video is a completely new discovery, in terms of mass ejection from the Sun. Compared to Humans, the Sun has the potential to put out significantly more heat in general. jmo...


---------

Don't want to speculate too much, but a lot of ancient civilizations are built in areas which are now, barren wastelands. More or less.

Perhaps there were times when the only hospitable place at all, was near the equator, and perhaps it was significantly more lush? I have no idea.

Based on what PaleoClimatology says, perhaps it could get alot hotter, without any assistance from humans at all?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology"]Paleoclimatology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


 
Last edited: