M25 - Why?

[Borchester]

And the vast majority who went to MIT recognise the reality of the human contribution to global warming.

Link?

[Nick]

I didn't think you'd bother reading it. Seems I was right.

Yes I did read it, it was a Wikipedia page about climate denial that had no science in it. It explained house the greenhouse effect works and linked to the IPCC report. So I ask again, have you got any links to the science cause it seems like you're struggling.

[Nick]

But the evidence that we are causing global warming is already overwhelming and growing.

Your evidence.....

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause

/\ /\ /\  Climate.gov, and it shows precisely zero evidence. It spends 60% of the article telling us temp is going up and ice is melting. The other 40% tells us temperature and CO2 are aligned, incorrect: CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years.


https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

/\/\ /\

"Rigorous analysis of all data and lines of evidence shows that most of the observed global warming over the past 50 years or so cannot be explained by natural causes and instead requires a significant role for the influence of human activities."

More science... /\ /\  We can't explain it so it must be humans, great science.


Do you have any science Steve cause the Royal Society and Climate.Gov don't?

[Borchester]

I may scan baked beans amongst other things but I still have enough sense not to challenge the vast majority of scientists by studying shit I find on the internet which I already agree with and call that evidence.

In short, you believe whatever you are told.

To be honest Steve, you sound a bit of a prat. But that said, you are unlikely to be any bother and you can't say fairer than that. 

[Sheepy]

These things are assumed to be facts because it is what the evidence strongly suggests and most scientists can see that. This will only change if some of the mavericks provides compelling evidence to the contrary and which explains away in a credible way the vast amount of evidence supportive of man made global warming.

No Steve it is pure theory with a lack of knowledge of outside the realm of other possibilities that cannot be equated for in their theory. When it is also wound up with geopolitics it can become a very dangerous mix as we have just seen. Hence my we have been part of an experiment thread. I get that it appeals to the emotional side of all our natures because that is what it is designed for. The problem being some of us who are a little more informed cannot expect everybody to be so. It can also be very frustrating and sometimes painful seeing people very emotionally involved in something when they don't really understand the psychology of it.

[srb7677]

Scientific evidence, yes. Which you have provided precisely none.

Earlier in this very thread I provided a wikipedia link that itself contained a large number of links to reliable scientrific sources. I didn't think you'd bother reading it. Seems I was right.

[srb7677]

Science cannot function without theory as a matter of fact and anybody who says it can and puts up theory as automatically a fact is no scientist. So there Einstein, these things are often taken as fact these days without any backing whatsoever. Not like it makes a blind bit of difference if you scan beans for a living anyway.

These things are assumed to be facts because it is what the evidence strongly suggests and most scientists can see that. This will only change if some of the mavericks provides compelling evidence to the contrary and which explains away in a credible way the vast amount of evidence supportive of man made global warming.

[srb7677]

Thank you I appreciate your sincerity. I actually do not believe that God will save us willy nilly. We do have to make an effort to save ourselves. It will not be down to science though but a change in that human nature that we have mentioned. I just wondered what would be the catalyst for that change. An interesting discussion.

I see my left wing politics as a constant struggle against the baser and more selfish instincts of humanity. Your perspective as a Tory supporter and a christian would be very different to mine, but we both recognise a need for humanity to change - less greed, less selfishness, more humility,  more compassion, more altruism.

One thing I have found. The selfish bastards are not all on the right. Plenty of people on the left are similar. A disappointing large majority of the electorate votes on the basis of self interest, even if they then convince themselves that it is good for everybody. The strongest advocates of mansion taxes never include those who live in them. The strongest advocates of tax cuts funded by spending cuts are almost always those who least rely on such spending and who pay the most taxes. The strongest opponents of welfare cuts are those relying on welfare. The strongest supporters of right to buy are those already renting in the social rented sector. The strongest opponents of rent caps are private landlords. The strongest supporters of rent caps are private tenants. Selfishness dominates even democracies and democratic processes, and that includes the majority of the electorate, and not just the politicians themselves.

How do we change this? I wish I knew. What I can say is that World War 2 diminshed it for a short whie by creating an egalitarian spirit of everyone being in it together, everyone having a stake in the primary national purpose of the day. It also brought people from numerous different social backgrounds together in the armed forces and elsewhere. Everyone got to see and hear how the other half lived and came to include them amongst their closest friends and comrades. All this created an atmosphere where many more people wanted to build a better society for everyone and not just themselves.

Our problem is how do we create that same spirit in peacetime? Solve that and we can diminish some of the baser, more selfish instincts of at least some of the people and strengthen their better natures.

[Nick]

A consensus is established based upon the scientific evidence at the time.

Scientific evidence, yes. Which you have provided precisely none.

[Sheepy]

And the vast majority who went to MIT recognise the reality of the human contribution to global warming.

Science cannot function without theory as a matter of fact and anybody who says it can and puts up theory as automatically a fact is no scientist. So there Einstein, these things are often taken as fact these days without any backing whatsoever. Not like it makes a blind bit of difference if you scan beans for a living anyway.

[srb7677]

Actually, the chap in the video works at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It could be he is cleaning the loos, but if not, well, MIT is the world's top university.

And the vast majority who went to MIT recognise the reality of the human contribution to global warming.

[srb7677]

That is not open for debate, she did and it is documented in history.

Rubbish.

She might have had more sense than you and recognised the likely reality of humanity contributing to global warning, but she did not have the power to convince the entire scientific community worldwide. That community has reached a consensus by scientists everywhere independently assessing the evidence and drawing conclusions from it.

Saying it is all Thatcher's doing is one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theorists I have heard.

Documented? More like a series of random things joined together in an attempt to create a false reality by conspiracy theorists. Truly laughable.

[srb7677]

"Some shit on the internet" says the man that scans baked beans!! And no, I didn't just find it, I was aware of it and looked specifically for it. Would you like me to show another 10 similar video's from eminent scientists actually explaining the science to disprove, or at least question anthropogenic global warming?
Up to now you've produced zero science to back it.

BTW, this is the bio of the man you said was a load of shit.

Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages and seasonal atmospheric effects. His main contribution to the academic literature on anthropogenic climate change is his proposal of the iris hypothesis in 2001, with co-authors Ming-Dah Chou and Arthur Y. Hou.[8][9] He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council at the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He joined MIT in 1983, prior to which he held positions at the University of Washington (1964–65), Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965–67), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (1966–67), University of Chicago (1968–72) and Harvard University (1972–83). He also briefly held a position of Visiting Lecturer at UCLA in 1967.[10] As of January 2010, his publications list included 230 papers and articles published between 1965 and 2008, with five in process for 2009. He is the author of a standard textbook on atmospheric dynamics, and co-authored the monograph Atmospheric Tides with Sydney Chapman.[11]

He was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT from 1983,[1] until his retirement which was reported in the Spring 2013 newsletter of MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS).[2] On December 27, 2013 the Cato Institute announced that he is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in their Center for the Study of Science.[12]

I may scan baked beans amongst other things but I still have enough sense not to challenge the vast majority of scientists by studying shit I find on the internet which I already agree with and call that evidence.

And you know how science works, right? A consensus is established based upon the scientific evidence at the time. A minority might think the evidence is wrong, but they have clearly failed to convince the vast majority, meaning that their evidence is insufficient. If they had the facts the consensus would change. Quoting the names of a few of these mavericks actually proves nothing. If any of them actually did what proper scientists do and posted peer reviewed studies with convincing eveidence they would begin to change the consensus. But the evidence that we are causing global warming is already overwhelming and growing.

You believe what you believe not because it is what the evidence tells you but because you want to believe that, and are simply using the internet - the pigging internet for god's sake!!! - to confirm your bias by seeking out the tiny minority who want to agree with you. You are not fooling me or most other people.

[Nick]

Right now much of the third world is destroying its environment in the scrambled for scarce resources and incompetent farming techniques

800,000 women in Africa die each year from diseases that could be stopped by allowing Africa to develop.
5000 children per DAY die due to lack of clean water, also could be stopped with development.

These people all die because the west stamps on the African dream...Why because they have all been hoodwinked by bad science, science that says the Earth will increase in temperature by half a degree and that Africa can't have power stations.
Congratulations 🥳.

[Nick]

As I said, denying all the world's scientists in preference for[HIGHLIGHT] some shit you found on the internet.[/HIGHLIGHT] This post just demonstrates and confirms that to me. What else did you think it would do? Convince me that the vast majority of scientists are more likelt to be wrong than you?

"Some shit on the internet" says the man that scans baked beans!! And no, I didn't just find it, I was aware of it and looked specifically for it. Would you like me to show another 10 similar video's from eminent scientists actually explaining the science to disprove, or at least question anthropogenic global warming?
Up to now you've produced zero science to back it.

BTW, this is the bio of the man you said was a load of shit.

Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages and seasonal atmospheric effects. His main contribution to the academic literature on anthropogenic climate change is his proposal of the iris hypothesis in 2001, with co-authors Ming-Dah Chou and Arthur Y. Hou.[8][9] He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council at the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He joined MIT in 1983, prior to which he held positions at the University of Washington (1964–65), Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965–67), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (1966–67), University of Chicago (1968–72) and Harvard University (1972–83). He also briefly held a position of Visiting Lecturer at UCLA in 1967.[10] As of January 2010, his publications list included 230 papers and articles published between 1965 and 2008, with five in process for 2009. He is the author of a standard textbook on atmospheric dynamics, and co-authored the monograph Atmospheric Tides with Sydney Chapman.[11]

He was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT from 1983,[1] until his retirement which was reported in the Spring 2013 newsletter of MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS).[2] On December 27, 2013 the Cato Institute announced that he is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in their Center for the Study of Science.[12]