Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Do you realise what an idiotic statement the above is?
If you see a doctor and he tells you you're ****ed without some operation and to get a second opinion and that second doctor says the same thing you count the opinions and get the operation or Darwin claims you.
Just about everything in our society is based on the consensus of opinions of experts from vehicle, food and product safety to the movies that get produced or songs that get played.
When professional organizations from geologists to surveyors make decisions for their bodies it is done solely by scientific consensus.
I could go on but I doubt it would sway you.
Yes I am as you seem to think China is a lovable as a Panda.
Russia is not China.
They could careless. World negative perception bounces off them quite easily.
Because the agreement is worthless and holds China to nothing. We have to check back in with them in 2030!
Oh no! The U.S will be the bad guy! Cry me a river!
There's been plenty of data collected. The radiation model has actually been pretty accurate to date.
Oh, I have no doubt you will.
You do realise that in the 1970s, there was overwhelming "scientific consensus" the planet was cooling, right?
Turned out to be non-scientific, and based on a short-term trend in temperatures. Sound familiar?
There are climate scientists who question the accuracy of the IPCC projections, there are climate scientists that are arguing that climate change is occurring principally through natural means, and there are climate scientists arguing that the cause of climate change is not yet known. These generally constitute the 3% and in some isolated cases may have something to bring to the table given that overall the science improves every year with new research and understanding.
What you won't find amongst climate scientists in anything statistically significant that you do amongst the climate change skeptics is the belief climate change is not currently occurring or is currently having an impact on the planet.
How is creating a working oceanographic model coming along? Oceans drive the climate.
The author's papers took no stance.
The fact is that every single significant scientific body internationally has taken a stance that humans are contributing to the warming we have seen over the last 150 years. The other little known fact is most of the so-called "sceptic scientists" including Spencer and Lindzen readily admit a human role in recent warming.
Counting opinions is not science (unless the counting is a part of some hypothesis being tested). However, if I had some undiagnosed illness, and I asked 100 physicians to give me their opinion and 100 random people to give me their opinion, I know which group I would roll with.
And in the 1970s most people went to church and prayed before each meal. 200 years earlier they burned ndns at the stake in a beautiful act of perceived selfless penance so the souls of the savage were released and could go to heaven. Society is supposed to get smarter not dumber.
And for clarification, there was not an "overwhelming" scientific consensus the planet was cooling. Another easily debunked made up on the spot Tecumsehfact
Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]
There wasn't a concensus on scientific cooling.
In any case, I thought you supported AGW but not the degree of resulting 'damage' from our actions.
What is your stance?
Yes, and now you attend the Church of AGW.
See, gonorrheafilledprairieboy, before you came back, at one point I outlined some notions for compromise between AGW True Believers and sceptics. Pretty quick I found out nobody's interested in seeking solutions, only in screaming their extremist opinions. So now I just lampoon the alleged thought processes they employ.
We've been down this road before. Why doesn't earth go down to -200 deg C at night? It is receiving minimal radiation at night.
Because Apollo's chariot is travelling through the underground tunnel from the West to the East so it can begin its flight across the sky.
When the authors of those 33% were asked if they still believe 97% said yes. It has nothing to do with AGW as a scientific whole. Just those authors of the 33% of 14000 papers are in consensus.
Tecumseh, you do know that you can support the idea of AGW without thinking there is any need to do anything about it right?
It could be that we are the main driver, but there is no significant harm resulting from our actions.
Just sayin
Someone who believes in AGW could theoretically still support every C02 based project.
It could be that we are the main driver, but there is no significant harm resulting from our actions.
Just sayin
Someone who believes in AGW could theoretically still support every C02 based project.
Mentalfloss, you know that there are measures that can be taken that will ameliorate global warming, if it exists, and also have near-term pollution reduction benefits, right?
Or are you too busy boarding up your windows for the 1,246 Class VIII hurricanes we're going to get next year (according to the model)?