Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

It's all a scam, you know that, don't you?

Originally Posted by spliff

It's all a scam, you know that, don't you?

You're a shit troll, you know that, don't you?

Get a future.

Originally Posted by spliff

Get a future.

The drink then.

'splains it.

Don't drink. Sorry again.

Dr. Zeke Hausfather - 2021 is now on track to be the 5th warmest year on record in the ERA5 dataset – consistent with the long-term warming trend over the past four decades. It could end up anywhere between 5th and 7th warmest depending on the remaining three months.: https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1446545532965457920

• More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.

Houlton is the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and a co-author of the study, “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

In spite of such results, public opinion polls as well as opinions of politicians and public representatives point to false beliefs and claims that a significant debate still exists among scientists over the true cause of climate change. In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper. A 2021 Gallup poll pointed to a deepening partisan divide in American politics on whether Earth’s rising observed temperatures since the Industrial Revolution were primarily caused by humans.

“To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it,” Lynas said. “That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere.”

In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only found four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. “We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000,” Lynas said.

Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as “solar,” “cosmic rays” and “natural cycles.” The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.

If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. “This pretty much should be the last word,” he said.

It's ironic that many climate scientists think the Arabian Peninsula will be uninhabitable by the end of the century. Everyone will rely on AC.

One big power cut and hundreds of thousands could die.

Yet they're in no rush at all.

Saudi Arabia has pledged to eliminate planet-warming emissions within its borders by 2060.

Saudis set out zero-carbon goals

Get serious if your going to throw charts and graphs about, at least show everything,

Today - More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

• More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.

Houlton is the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and a co-author of the study, “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

In spite of such results, public opinion polls as well as opinions of politicians and public representatives point to false beliefs and claims that a significant debate still exists among scientists over the true cause of climate change. In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper. A 2021 Gallup poll pointed to a deepening partisan divide in American politics on whether Earth’s rising observed temperatures since the Industrial Revolution were primarily caused by humans.

“To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it,” Lynas said. “That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere.”

In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only found four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. “We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000,” Lynas said.

Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as “solar,” “cosmic rays” and “natural cycles.” The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.

If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. “This pretty much should be the last word,” he said.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Today - More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans

The scientists that where accepted to participate agreed 100%, Those that produced arguing facts where excluded.

That's fine, say we stopped it all tomorrow, now you guarantee me that in our generations lifetime there will be no catastrophic event on any continent.

Originally Posted by havnfun

That's fine, say we stopped it all tomorrow, now you guarantee me that in our generations lifetime there will be no catastrophic event on any continent.

I see taking a break has not stopped you being a cretinous fuck.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I see taking a break has not stopped you being a cretinous fuck.

Originally Posted by havnfun (Any doubts about Climate Change?)
That's fine, say we stopped it all tomorrow, now you guarantee me that in our generations lifetime there will be no catastrophic event on any continent.

Because you know,I know, the scientists know, only ignorant uninformed people, or people that work all day and still trust the news at night don't know. It's as simple as "follow the money" all of those 99.9% of scientist would be out of a job if they put out a paper stating the fact that the Earth has changed temperature for as long as we can scientifically prove and we can''t scientifically forecast the future temperature.
One massive volcanic eruption at any time could wipe out or multiply by X what humans produce in one action, one direct solar flare from the sun could wipe out billions of people if it hit China or India.

^not true

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's ironic that many climate scientists think the Arabian Peninsula will be uninhabitable by the end of the century. Everyone will rely on AC.

Those scum + japan and Australia have been caught lobbying to change a climate report.

COP26: Document leak reveals nations lobbying to change key climate report

The leak reveals Saudi Arabia, Japan and Australia are among countries asking the UN to play down the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels.


It also shows some wealthy nations are questioning paying more to poorer states to move to greener technologies.


This "lobbying" raises questions for the COP26 climate summit in November.


The leak reveals countries pushing back on UN recommendations for action and comes just days before they will be asked at the summit to make significant commitments to slow down climate change and keep global warming to 1.5 degrees.


The leaked documents consist of more than 32,000 submissions made by governments, companies and other interested parties to the team of scientists compiling a UN report designed to bring together the best scientific evidence on how to tackle climate change.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58982445

Originally Posted by malmomike77

Those scum + japan and Australia have been caught lobbying to change a climate report.

COP26: Document leak reveals nations lobbying to change key climate report

The leak reveals Saudi Arabia, Japan and Australia are among countries asking the UN to play down the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels.

Ah they're all it. Russia, the US, Chinkystan, they all have a vested economic interest in kicking the can down the road.

^ indeed but they got caught and published. I hate lobbyists with a vengeance.

I am not a global warming sceptic but I am very much a catastrophic predictions sceptic.

i don’t argue with the science of greenhouse gasses or the temperature data collected but when the environmentalists makes catastrophic predictions, i recall all their past predictions that didn’t’ come true.

remember how “acid rain” was going to destroy all the cereal crops, how the oil was supposed to run out in the nineties, how we were supposed to reach ”peak oil” in the teens, the polar ice cap was supposed to have melted and the andaman islands should be under water by now - but none of it happened.

......and then there where the scare stories that were supposed to frighten us with how soon we would be facing disaster – obama told us there was 4 years to save the – that was 12 years ago, prince charles told us we had 96 months to save the world and that was 10 years ago.

a link to a list of environmentalist’s scares that didn’t happen – the lists starts after a couple of paragraphs on explanation.

50 years of failed doomsday, eco-pocalyptic predictions; the so-called ‘experts’ are 0-50 | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

50 years of failed doomsday, eco-pocalyptic predictions; the so-called ‘experts’ are 0-50 | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

the best way of dealing with all these scare stories including the current so called “climate emergency” is to ignore them.

Originally Posted by taxexile

the best way of dealing with all these scare stories including the current so called “climate emergency” is to ignore them.

Originally Posted by taxexile

American Enterprise Institute - AEI

Oh great, another right-wing think tank that is funded by big oil. Total shit source.

^ & ^^

Nice thing about this thread besides raising awareness to Climate Change is that it draws the mentally incompetent out of the woodwork.

do you really think that the populations of western countries will stand for the impoverishment that their governments proposed green measures will entail whilst china, japan, india and russia continue to industrialise and strengthen.

On COPD

The public is waking up to the costs of the West’s unilateral eco-disarmament.

Cop26 is a problem for Boris Johnson. It is unlikely to reach consensus, and voters at home are wary of the implications of ‘net zero’

In one sense, the ( green lobby) has been brilliantly successful. No cause in the Western world has more excited the activist young, or been more passionately preached from pulpits, in schoolrooms and on television. Like medieval monarchs blessing the Crusades, our current heir to the throne, and his heir, exhort their future subjects to ever-greater sacrifices for the sake of the planet. “Net zero” is the name for the sacrificial ritual. No mainstream political party dares disagree.

Yet these Cops keep copping out. The same basic problem recurs. Nations which industrialised earlier are far readier to reduce carbon emissions than are developing nations, who fear being cheated of economic growth. Because the latter are growing so fast (China and India account for more than a third of all global carbon emissions), there will be no overall carbon reduction unless they “disarm”.

They won’t.

Indeed, as these rising nations become richer and more assertive, Western persuasiveness weakens. Even Barack Obama failed to achieve consensus at Copenhagen’s Cop15 in 2009. Neither his former vice-president, Joe Biden, nor Boris Johnson, has as much chance in Glasgow next week as he had then. The environmental equivalent of global multilateral disarmament is not happening.

The unilateral disarmament of the West is.

One person who never accepted the Thatcher remedy, she argued that the problem could be dealt with only through a global UN framework, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The challenge, she said, was “as great as any disarmament treaty”. She made that comparison because disarmament is worse than useless unless all parties really do disarm, was her then chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson. Faced with a draft for her Royal Society speech proposing universal fuel levies and debt relief for developing countries in return for preserving their rainforests, he wrote, “These bizarre ideas are contrary to Government policy, and are political dynamite.” They were dropped from the speech, but never went away.

Twenty years on, the financial crash of 2008-9 gravely injured the West’s authority over how the world is run. Lawson’s short book on climate change, An Appeal to Reason, came out at that time. It tackled IPCC projections for 50 or 100 years hence. These could not have any degree of accuracy, he said: there were too many imponderables. Even on their own calculations, food production was set to rise and people to be several times better off than they were now. Why tighten our belts to help our richer successors?

Lawson also emphasised the clash of interests between the West and the rest. Shortly afterwards, Copenhagen exhibited this. The meeting produced vague promises of co-operation and “climate aid” to the developing world, but nothing legally enforceable. Carbon-based energy could not go away, said Lawson, because it was “far and away the cheapest source of energy … and is likely to remain so, not forever, but for the foreseeable future”.

These basic arguments have never been disproved. Even if global warming is a very serious problem, why attempt the economically and politically impossible? Why not consider methods of adaptation, rather than cry catastrophe? Lawson and others set up the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

Over the years, the GWPF has produced work consistently pointing to alternatives – foreshadowing, in 2010, the shale gas revolution, for example – and to problems, such as the danger of depending on emergency gas supplies from Russia (in 2018). The latter is beautifully illustrated by Vladimir Putin’s threat that if we want him in Glasgow, we must accept his gas price “offer”. This week, a new GWPF pamphlet by Gwythian Prins sets out six fallacies of “green growth” and warns of the security implications of letting China manipulate our obsession with net zero while not truly decarbonising.

When the GWPF board has met, we have discussed the repressive hostility from policy elites. Those elites have expended enormous energy arguing that we were “climate-change deniers” (a deliberately libellous term, echoing the Holocaust), none on considering what we were saying.

Since the problems of the Cop process were so obvious, we puzzled, why did our leaders not admit them? But perhaps the answer was not so hard to see. It is a natural human instinct to side with a virtuous intention; and so long as it remains abstract, its virtue will not be proved wrong. Who would not favour a cleaner, greener planet?

Rather than honestly confronting the growing practical difficulties, our leaders preferred to frighten the public with the idea of “emergency”. No emergency has been proved: if you want an example of a true emergency, think of Covid in March last year. A climate emergency, on the other hand, is a speculation.

On climate policy, we sceptics concluded, minds would change only because of cost. If people were forced to pay substantially more for the essentials of life, they would start asking why.

This is now happening, because the emergency’s artificial timetable is making change much more disruptive, expensive and frightening than it need be. People are worried about electric vehicle batteries and charging points, losing wood-burning stoves, being made to pay meat taxes or get rid of gas-fired boilers. In the case of heat pumps, customers face an unprecedented situation of being forced to pay more (through tax, if subsidised) for a technology which is slower and more cumbersome than the one it replaces. Only in recent months have the media in general latched on to what the GWPF and other sceptics have been saying for more than a decade.


The government is also trapped politically and diplomatically, seeking to show off, in Glasgow, a virtue that does not impress large parts of the global or, increasingly, the domestic audience. Our rising enemies in the world, if they attend Cop26 at all, will be laughing at us.
The public is waking up to the costs of the West’s unilateral eco-disarmament

reversing the temperature changes that are, for whatever reason occurring, with the technology we have at present is an impossible task. even if china and india etc. turn off the taps it would not make a blind bit of difference and impoverishing people in the west with taxes imposed by virtue seeking politicians on fuels, meat, power and travel will not be accepted by the population who are waking up to the fact that their comfortable lives are about to become a lot less comfortable and convenient. it would be far better to concentrate on improving the technology used in generating the power we need to travel, produce, heat, cool and send all those daft memes via whats app and e mail, to say nothing of the power used to mine cryptocurrencies, in fact it would be far better to just sit back and wait for the chinese to come up with a technological
solution, because they are the only ones capable of doing it.