Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls. New! ELECTION 2016, Issues and Leaders

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.

Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 24 Apr 2018, 17:59

The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 24 Apr 2018, 18:07

Mothra's auto-generated response:

"i have tried really hard to decline your offer to take you through my understanding of Climate Change without causing you offence. I'm sorry but i just don't want to. To have a conversation with you that interests me about Climate Change, we can't start where you are. I didn't want to be so blunt so i have, to the best of my ability, diplomatically attempted to extricate myself from the situation."

"I certainly answered your questions as far as i was willing, Augie."

"I did not wish to discuss your videos. I apologise that that has caused drama."
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby MilesAway » 24 Apr 2018, 18:16

:c :gsp :hush :hush :hush :hush
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 24 Apr 2018, 18:19

MilesAway wrote::c :gsp :hush :hush :hush :hush


I don't drink, Miles.

You're talking about the wrong person.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 24 Apr 2018, 19:03

CaesarAugustus wrote:Mothra's auto-generated response:

"i have tried really hard to decline your offer to take you through my understanding of Climate Change without causing you offence. I'm sorry but i just don't want to. To have a conversation with you that interests me about Climate Change, we can't start where you are. I didn't want to be so blunt so i have, to the best of my ability, diplomatically attempted to extricate myself from the situation."

"I certainly answered your questions as far as i was willing, Augie."

"I did not wish to discuss your videos. I apologise that that has caused drama."


No Augie. You still don't understand. Stop expecting people to discuss videos at you that are:

a: Aimed at children

b: Pushing a conservative political agenda.

Monk, if he can be bothered (i couldn't, let's face it), will have you for breakfast on that one.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby MilesAway » 24 Apr 2018, 19:11

mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:Mothra's auto-generated response:

"i have tried really hard to decline your offer to take you through my understanding of Climate Change without causing you offence. I'm sorry but i just don't want to. To have a conversation with you that interests me about Climate Change, we can't start where you are. I didn't want to be so blunt so i have, to the best of my ability, diplomatically attempted to extricate myself from the situation."

"I certainly answered your questions as far as i was willing, Augie."

"I did not wish to discuss your videos. I apologise that that has caused drama."


No Augie. You still don't understand. Stop expecting people to discuss videos at you that are:

a: Aimed at children

b: Pushing a conservative political agenda.

Monk, if he can be bothered (i couldn't, let's face it), will have you for breakfast on that one.

Image
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 24 Apr 2018, 19:14

Image
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby MilesAway » 24 Apr 2018, 19:44

mothra wrote:Image

...mini-ouch!
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby johnsmith » 24 Apr 2018, 20:08

MilesAway wrote:Image


she's hot .... she's just not used to swallowing. :c
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5764
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 24 Apr 2018, 20:28

mothra wrote:No Augie. You still don't understand. Stop expecting people to discuss videos at you that are:

a: Aimed at children

b: Pushing a conservative political agenda.


I don't get it. If it's aimed at children and pushing a conservative agenda, then why don't you rebut the video and be done with it.

Again, I'm not demanding anything (I wouldn't want pinkeye to go nuts again); I'm just humbly requesting.

Up to you.

mothra wrote:Monk, if he can be bothered (i couldn't, let's face it), will have you for breakfast on that one.


Then do it.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 24 Apr 2018, 20:29

johnsmith wrote:
MilesAway wrote:Image


she's hot .... she's just not used to swallowing. :c


Still don't see the point of vacuous photos of a woman taking a sip of alcohol.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby johnsmith » 24 Apr 2018, 20:31

CaesarAugustus wrote:
Still don't see the point of vacuous photos of a woman taking a sip of alcohol.


there is no point ... miles is high.

Apparently drugs do that to you. I don't know from personal experience, so you'd have to check with mothra if you want that confirmed. :c
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5764
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 24 Apr 2018, 20:38

johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
Still don't see the point of vacuous photos of a woman taking a sip of alcohol.


there is no point ... miles is high.

Apparently drugs do that to you. I don't know from personal experience, so you'd have to check with mothra if you want that confirmed. :c


Ah ok, I wouldn't know as well.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 24 Apr 2018, 20:39

mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:Mothra's auto-generated response:

"i have tried really hard to decline your offer to take you through my understanding of Climate Change without causing you offence. I'm sorry but i just don't want to. To have a conversation with you that interests me about Climate Change, we can't start where you are. I didn't want to be so blunt so i have, to the best of my ability, diplomatically attempted to extricate myself from the situation."

"I certainly answered your questions as far as i was willing, Augie."

"I did not wish to discuss your videos. I apologise that that has caused drama."


No Augie. You still don't understand. Stop expecting people to discuss videos at you that are:

a: Aimed at children

b: Pushing a conservative political agenda.

Monk, if he can be bothered (i couldn't, let's face it), will have you for breakfast on that one.


Just to clarify, Mothra.

Is this last word you have to say on the issue?

Have you answered the question as much as you're willing?

Do you refuse my invitation to discuss the video?

Just checking, so that I can move on??
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby HBS Guy » 24 Apr 2018, 22:57

Not watching a stupid video.

Pretty much all scientists working in the field agree on the theory of AGW.

There are petitions of “thousands of scientists” arguing against AGW but hardly any of them are scientists and most do not work in the field of climatology. Mathematicians, engineers, geologists like Plimer.

Plimer is said to have written a book rebutting climate change. Full of errors—mankind releases a LOT more CO2 than volcanoes do etc. Fossil fuel companies are looking to create confusion as to the certainty of AGW.

Lees, on OzPol, often plays to the ways scientists frame their report. If they don’t know for sure something is true but think it is they will say “It is very likely that. . .” and so on. Uncertainty/sampling error/confidence limits also might make it look like scientists aren’t sure but that is not the case, scientists specify the level of uncertainty in their tests or measurements.

Ultimately, some facts are very sure:

1. the 46% of additional CO2 in the atmosphere now over 1850 levels was put there by mankind burning fossil fuels: analysis of the isotopes of the oxygen in the CO2 shows it comes from burning fossil fuels (plants preferably take in Oxygen of one isotope but that changes into the other isotope over huge amounts of time. Can give more details.

2. The earth is a black body—it does not emit visible light. It absorbs radiation from the sun on the day surface, mostly UV and visible light. As you know, this heats the surface. A black body cools down by emitting infra red. Some gases in the atmosphere can absorb certain frequencies of IR, preventing them from leaving the atmosphere for space, so cooling the planet. H2O, water vapor, blocks a lot of frequencies. As the CO2 content in the atmosphere increases it blocks more frequencies of IR. So, altho CO2 might be a minor constituent of the atmosphere it is an effective greenhouse gas.

3. Looking at IR frequencies from the surface we detect that as CO2 increases more IR is redirected back down to the lower atmosphere and surface. No crap about CO2 lagging temperature etc.

Any competent person would know this, there is little argument against it. Those signing letters supporting doubt about AGW know nothing about this basic AGW science. Doubtless they received “encouragement” to sign letters, pretend to have written books, make public statements of doubt about AGW. Fossil fuels are big money interests.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49200
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 24 Apr 2018, 23:11

HBS Guy wrote:Not watching a stupid video.

Pretty much all scientists working in the field agree on the theory of AGW.

There are petitions of “thousands of scientists” arguing against AGW but hardly any of them are scientists and most do not work in the field of climatology. Mathematicians, engineers, geologists like Plimer.

Plimer is said to have written a book rebutting climate change. Full of errors—mankind releases a LOT more CO2 than volcanoes do etc. Fossil fuel companies are looking to create confusion as to the certainty of AGW.

Lees, on OzPol, often plays to the ways scientists frame their report. If they don’t know for sure something is true but think it is they will say “It is very likely that. . .” and so on. Uncertainty/sampling error/confidence limits also might make it look like scientists aren’t sure but that is not the case, scientists specify the level of uncertainty in their tests or measurements.

Ultimately, some facts are very sure:

1. the 46% of additional CO2 in the atmosphere now over 1850 levels was put there by mankind burning fossil fuels: analysis of the isotopes of the oxygen in the CO2 shows it comes from burning fossil fuels (plants preferably take in Oxygen of one isotope but that changes into the other isotope over huge amounts of time. Can give more details.

2. The earth is a black body—it does not emit visible light. It absorbs radiation from the sun on the day surface, mostly UV and visible light. As you know, this heats the surface. A black body cools down by emitting infra red. Some gases in the atmosphere can absorb certain frequencies of IR, preventing them from leaving the atmosphere for space, so cooling the planet. H2O, water vapor, blocks a lot of frequencies. As the CO2 content in the atmosphere increases it blocks more frequencies of IR. So, altho CO2 might be a minor constituent of the atmosphere it is an effective greenhouse gas.

3. Looking at IR frequencies from the surface we detect that as CO2 increases more IR is redirected back down to the lower atmosphere and surface. No crap about CO2 lagging temperature etc.

Any competent person would know this, there is little argument against it. Those signing letters supporting doubt about AGW know nothing about this basic AGW science. Doubtless they received “encouragement” to sign letters, pretend to have written books, make public statements of doubt about AGW. Fossil fuels are big money interests.


Ok, first of all, HBS Guy,

I suggest you watch the video, because the video doesn't say anything remotely what you think it says.

But, to save you the trouble (if you don't want to watch it), the video in fact agrees that AGW climate change is real. In fact, it says that the claim that '97% percent of scientists agree that climate change is real' is factually correct...

What the video raises is the question of how some on the Left phrase the issue of climate change. When politicians (particularly on the Left) say "97% of scientists believe that climate change is real...." And then in the same speech say: "Climate change is greatest moral challenge of the 21st century" etc. what they are attempting to do (indirectly or call it subliminal messaging) is to give the receiver a kind of 'coded' message: -

"97% of scientists believe that climate change is CATASTROPHIC. "

Sure, 97% of scientists believe that AGW climate change is real. I believe that AGW climate change is real. BUT, scientists do not agree on the MAGNITUDE of climate change - whether it be mild or catastrophic. And certainly they don't agree that Climate Change is catastrophic.

But again, the way that politicians and some on the Left phrase the issue, it makes many people think that '97% of scientists believe that climate change is CATASTROPHIC."

That is what this thread about.

Now, surely, you would agree that 97% of scientists DO NOT agree that Climate Change is CATASTROPHIC?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 24 Apr 2018, 23:48

Image
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 00:00

mothra wrote:Image


Not sure what you're trying to say. Please be blunt.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 25 Apr 2018, 00:04

CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:Image


Not sure what you're trying to say. Please be blunt.



I think Monk has much to say about that. I will watch with interest.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Apr 2018, 00:08

If climate change goes on long enough it will be catastrophic. Like, end the overturning circulations in the oceans and destroy the base of the marine pyramid of life and lose all our fisheries. . .

Ask the people in the UK, ask how many died there this winter, ditto for the New England part of the US. If the Gulf Stream slows much more sea levels and sea surface temperatures off the east coast of the US will both soar. High sea surface temperatures feed storms and high sea levels mean storms can cause floods. Catastrophic enough? The Jet Stream is affected by AGW and can plant a non–moving bow that funnels storms along the same track, one storm then the next then. . .

I don’t usually talk about that, I just concentrate on the science. However, it seems the overturning circulations in the oceans are slowing. Hope you won’t mind not having fish to eat anymore.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49200
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Apr 2018, 00:12

Growing gills and fins might be a good strategy, longer term.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49200
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 25 Apr 2018, 00:12

HBS Guy wrote:If climate change goes on long enough it will be catastrophic. Like, end the overturning circulations in the oceans and destroy the base of the marine pyramid of life and lose all our fisheries. . .

Ask the people in the UK, ask how many dies there this winter, ditto for the New England part of the US. If the Gulf Stream slows much more sea levels and sea surface temperatures off the east coast of the US will both soar. High sea surface temperatures feed storms and high sea levels mean storms can cause floods. Catastrophic enough? The Jet Stream is affected by AGW and can plant a non–moving bow that funnels storms along the same track, one storm then the next then. . .

I don’t usually talk about that, I just concentrate on the science. However, it seems the overturning circulations in the oceans are slowing. Hope you won’t mind not having fish to eat anymore.


Been a few rather alarming events already.

And catastrophic to you? Sea turtles? Pacific Islanders?
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby mothra » 25 Apr 2018, 00:13

HBS Guy wrote:Growing gills and fins might be a good strategy, longer term.


And adapted to feed on blue-green algae.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby HBS Guy » 25 Apr 2018, 00:15

A major US city destroyed by storm and flood, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, billions of dollars of damage to homes, infrastructure and agriculture infrastructure. This years north easters were just a little taste.
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49200
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

Postby Auggie » 25 Apr 2018, 00:16

HBS Guy wrote:If climate change goes on long enough it will be catastrophic. Like, end the overturning circulations in the oceans and destroy the base of the marine pyramid of life and lose all our fisheries. . .

Ask the people in the UK, ask how many died there this winter, ditto for the New England part of the US. If the Gulf Stream slows much more sea levels and sea surface temperatures off the east coast of the US will both soar. High sea surface temperatures feed storms and high sea levels mean storms can cause floods. Catastrophic enough? The Jet Stream is affected by AGW and can plant a non–moving bow that funnels storms along the same track, one storm then the next then. . .

I don’t usually talk about that, I just concentrate on the science. However, it seems the overturning circulations in the oceans are slowing. Hope you won’t mind not having fish to eat anymore.


Ok, so 'eventually' it will be catastrophic. When? In 2 years, 10 years, 100, 1000 years?? What do scientists agree on?

The reason why I have raised this issue is because from a policy perspective we need to weigh the costs with the gains. If climate change is set to become catastrophic within 1000 years, is it worth sacrificing economic activity, or spending taxpayers dollars to prevent it from becoming catastrophic instead within 2000 years?

I'm not saying that it won't become catastrophic, but when? And is it worth acting now when in 50 years time better technology will be available at a lower cost to significantly reduce climate change???

Now, if scientists can agree as to the magnitude and when it will become catastrophic, then I would like to know in order to know what the policy position should be.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aussie, Texan and 1 guest