Jump to content

Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll


webfact

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"You have your view and I have mine. "

Problem is your views are incorrect. We're not talking opinions but facts here.

My views are based on past observations and correct. Yours are based on expectations, prophesies and anticipations so are incorrect.

 

These climate change 'experts' are employed by organisations who often have a financial interest in the global warming and climate change agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

My views are based on past observations and correct. Yours are based on expectations, prophesies and anticipations so are incorrect.

 

These climate change 'experts' are employed by organisations who often have a financial interest in the global warming and climate change agenda.

OK, you've already told us you don't do science. 

 

No need to rub it in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

My views are based on past observations and correct. Yours are based on expectations, prophesies and anticipations so are incorrect.

 

These climate change 'experts' are employed by organisations who often have a financial interest in the global warming and climate change agenda.

Sure mate, what you see exists, what you can't see doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also mention that sea level rise is often confused with land sinking. Certain islands that are experiencing alarming sea level rise, are actually experiencing land sinking. The city of Bangkok is an example of this. Bangkok is sinking at a greater rate than sea levels are rising. ThaiVisa produced a news article on this, some time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, yogi100 said:

"You'll be long gone by then and therefore probably don't care."

There's no need to be rude. Let's keep it civilised shall we.

 

I prefer to base things upon what I can see for myself and draw my own conclusions rather than what some professor is paid to tell me.

 

You have your view and I have mine. Try addressing people as you would face to face rather than being insulting from behind the screen of a computer.

I wasn’t being rude, I was being factual. From your past post I’m guessing you’re mid 60’s at best, possibly in your 70’s. Unless you’re immortal I’m quite sure these changes will not impact you in your lifetime. I may not also see them in mine but it doesn’t mean my son won’t. At 9 months old he definitely will. It’s future generations we are talking about here. 

Your ability to “see things” does not mean it isn’t happening (seen much photosynthesis recently; personally seen the glaciers melting?) and when did we stop believing people who have devoted their whole life to become an expert in their field over your “view?” All opinions are not created equal. You dont question your doctor when he gives you a diagnosis because you have a different “view” but you readily dismiss individuals of equal professional standing over subjects you have a vague idea about and no other facts other than “you can’t see it”. 

And I guarantee I’m addressing you on “a computer” as I would exactly address you face to face (you probably wouldn’t like that either) but it is done with a hope that you may go and do your own research and get better informed about something that WILL impact our children and grandchildren if we don’t start listening more to the “paid professors”. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 2:53 AM, Ahab said:

Have the read the proposals put forward by the Democrats (US congress) "Green New Deal"? It makes a skittle sh$%^ing nuclear powered unicorn sound like a reasonable solution. When the eco-warriors stop flying on airplanes, heating their homes with fossil fuels in the winter time, and come up with reasonable solutions I might start listening to them, but I am not going to hold my breath until that time.

 

Yeah McConnell announced the senate will put the new green deal to a vote. He couldn't keep the grin off of his face while doing so. It was classic. But good let's see who votes yes for it so we can eliminate them as a presidential candidate. 

 

My husband who is an immigrant to the USA hates Trump. He didn't believe me before moving here when I told him wait until you see what the other side is like. He is truly in a state of disbelief that anybody over the age of 12 years old is ignorant enough to believe in the new green deal. He still hates Trump. lol 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Berkshire said:

About the author: Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

 

So clearly, he has an agenda.  For everyone in the fossil fuel industry/camp, they're about making money.  But for many who just blindly follow Trump....not sure what you're getting out of it. 

OK, the guy has an agenda, exactly in the same way people who support the theory have their agenda.

 

What is factually wrong with the article? The 97% is a claim that is not supported by facts.

 

The study that produced this sound bite actually found that less than 1% of scientific papers that were looked at actually stated that anthropogenic causes were the reason for the temperature rise observed since 1880. Less than 1% not 97% of the scientific papers supported the theory of anthropogenic global warming so you might want to ask yourself why John Cook published a BS paper with the 97% number in it (hint, he threw out a shitload of papers that did not say what he wanted them to say).

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

OK, the guy has an agenda, exactly in the same way people who support the theory have their agenda.

 

What is factually wrong with the article? The 97% is a claim that is not supported by facts.

 

The study that produced this sound bite actually found that less than 1% of scientific papers that were looked at actually stated that anthropogenic causes were the reason for the temperature rise observed since 1880. Less than 1% not 97% of the scientific papers supported the theory of anthropogenic global warming so you might want to ask yourself why John Cook published a BS paper with the 97% number in it (hint, he threw out a shitload of papers that did not say what he wanted them to say).

Having an agenda and having scientific evidence are not the same thing.

 

Check the science!

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, yogi100 said:

I prefer to base things upon what I can see for myself and draw my own conclusions rather than what some professor is paid to tell me.

 

I hope you don't apply that same standard "common sense" to your health care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Having an agenda and having scientific evidence are not the same thing.

 

Check the science!

Read the paper that my post is based on. John Cook is a scientist (allegedly) and he has an agenda which is to try to convince people that 97% of scientists buy into the manmade global warming hysteria. The actual number of studies that stated this as a conclusion was less than 1% of the papers on the topic. 97% of scientists do not agree that anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of global warming. It is a myth and always has been a myth based on a single flawed paper produced by Mr. John Cook. A single scientific paper on any topic does not make it a fact, and there are not any other evidence to support this false claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Check the science!

 

Excellent advice! That's what I do, and that's why I'm very skeptical about the mantra which demonizes CO2.

 

10 years ago, or so, I used to accept that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were a real threat to the climate, and that we should move to renewable energy as quickly as possible. I was puzzled why governments were not taking swifter action.

 

I recall listening to interviews of James Lovelock, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and other so-called authorities who made alarming statements about unprecedented rates of climate change, ocean acidification that would destroy the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, sea level rises that would destroy many coastal cities and submerge many islands, melting ice in the arctic which would cause the extinction of the polar bear, and so on, and so on.

 

When I began searching on the internet, and in Google Scholar, for more information on the issues mentioned in these interviews, such as ocean acidification, I began to realize how totally biased and non-educational such interviews were.
For example, if a scientist gives a talk on Ocean Acidification, and explains that CO2 dissolves in water to form Carbonic Acid which makes the oceans more acidic, wouldn't you think that person would also mention what the current pH of the oceans are, and how much the pH as changed since the industrial revolution?

 

In order to get this information, I had to do my own research. After checking a number of scientific papers, it became clear why the pH of the oceans was never mentioned when 'alarmist' scientists discussed this issue during interviews in the media. Such facts would have undermined the alarmist message.

 

Here is some of the information I discovered.
(1) The average pH of the surface of the oceans is estimated to be 8.1. A pH of 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acidic. Above 7 is alkaline, or basic.
(2) This average pH, only of the surface and which can only be approximate, is estimated to have fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 since the industrial revolution.
(3) The pH of the oceans has a natural variability according to the season of the year, the location of the ocean, and the depth of the ocean. This variability is greater than the predicted changes to the pH of the oceans during the next century, and sea life is well used to adapting to such changes.
(4) There is constant upwelling and downwelling in the oceans causing changes in temperature and alkalinity.
(5) There are possibly millions of volcanoes on the sea floor, some of which will be active at any given moment, producing heat and carbon dioxide. It's not known exactly how many submarine volcanoes there are. Estimates vary between 1 million and 10 million.

 

By the way, James Lovelock, as he got older and wiser, realised his mistake regarding predictions of catastrophic climate change due to man's CO2 emissions. This is now his current view.

 

"Climate alarmism, he says, is not “remotely scientific”; one volcano could make more difference to global warming than humans ever could; the computer models are “unreliable”; greens have behaved “deplorably”; and anyone who tries to “predict more than five to ten years is a bit of an idiot.”

 

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2016/10/01/james-lovelock-godfather-green-climate-change-religion-totally-unscientific/

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, yogi100 said:

I prefer to base things upon what I can see for myself and draw my own conclusions rather than what some professor is paid to tell me.

Well, you're on a hiding to nothing then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Excellent advice! That's what I do, and that's why I'm very skeptical about the mantra which demonizes CO2.

 

10 years ago, or so, I used to accept that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were a real threat to the climate, and that we should move to renewable energy as quickly as possible. I was puzzled why governments were not taking swifter action.

 

I recall listening to interviews of James Lovelock, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and other so-called authorities who made alarming statements about unprecedented rates of climate change, ocean acidification that would destroy the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, sea level rises that would destroy many coastal cities and submerge many islands, melting ice in the arctic which would cause the extinction of the polar bear, and so on, and so on.

 

When I began searching on the internet, and in Google Scholar, for more information on the issues mentioned in these interviews, such as ocean acidification, I began to realize how totally biased and non-educational such interviews were.
For example, if a scientist gives a talk on Ocean Acidification, and explains that CO2 dissolves in water to form Carbonic Acid which makes the oceans more acidic, wouldn't you think that person would also mention what the current pH of the oceans are, and how much the pH as changed since the industrial revolution?

 

In order to get this information, I had to do my own research. After checking a number of scientific papers, it became clear why the pH of the oceans was never mentioned when 'alarmist' scientists discussed this issue during interviews in the media. Such facts would have undermined the alarmist message.

 

Here is some of the information I discovered.
(1) The average pH of the surface of the oceans is estimated to be 8.1. A pH of 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acidic. Above 7 is alkaline, or basic.
(2) This average pH, only of the surface and which can only be approximate, is estimated to have fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 since the industrial revolution.
(3) The pH of the oceans has a natural variability according to the season of the year, the location of the ocean, and the depth of the ocean. This variability is greater than the predicted changes to the pH of the oceans during the next century, and sea life is well used to adapting to such changes.
(4) There is constant upwelling and downwelling in the oceans causing changes in temperature and alkalinity.
(5) There are possibly millions of volcanoes on the sea floor, some of which will be active at any given moment, producing heat and carbon dioxide. It's not known exactly how many submarine volcanoes there are. Estimates vary between 1 million and 10 million.

 

By the way, James Lovelock, as he got older and wiser, realised his mistake regarding predictions of catastrophic climate change due to man's CO2 emissions. This is now his current view.

You should have spent half the time you wasted on that post actually reading some scientific research reports.

 

Had you done so you’d have come across thousands of research papers addressing ocean acidification that are stuffed full of data on the changes in the pH.

 

The Great Barrier Reef being one of their favourite study areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You should have spent half the time you wasted on that post actually reading some scientific research reports.

 

Had you done so you’d have come across thousands of research papers addressing ocean acidification that are stuffed full of data on the changes in the pH.

 

The Great Barrier Reef being one of their favourite study areas.

I know there are many thousands of reports in each of the many different disciplines of climate research, and I know that I don't have the time to read them all. I don't think anyone has.

 

The information I provided on ocean acidification is what I understand to be reasonably factual. If you think it isn't, then I would be grateful if you could show contrary evidence from a reliable source.

 

Ultimately, everyone has to rely upon what makes sense to them. If you have little understanding of the methodology of science, then it's difficult to be skeptical, and it's much easier to just accept the news reports of the bogus 90% or 97% consensus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...