I believe global warming is partially caused by man, but I feel the magnitude of the potential problem is exaggerated. Please note the following graph and comments from the NOAA:
Yearly surface temperatures since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
...
Me talking out of my lower orifice:
1880-1910 - Steady temperature trend 1910-1945 - Increasing temperature trend 1945-1975 - Steady temperature trend 1975-2000 - Increasing temperature trend 2000-2016 - Steady temperature trend
Observed trend: Repeated cycle of 30 years of rising temperatures followed by 30 years of steady temperatures
Therefore ergo ...
The world can expect 15 more years of steady temperatures.
"Settled Science"? ...
Or the dangers of extrapolation?
...
... Please forgive me for providing one last link to a "fake news" (ie conservative) source:
I prefer to think that when the liberal left states indisputedly that the sky is falling ... That it might be a hailstorm.
...
Finally here is a link from the lamestream media from a month ago suggesting that the near steady temperature over the past 18 years is ongoing and shows no signs of stopping.
That's a huge amount of conclusions for you to draw from one graph. Most conservatives in this subject, grasp every small stat that isn't alarming and ignore the thousand of facts that are.
Saint Jiub · Member since
From the links I found, there is a 16% chance of the global warming pause of 1998 continuing past 2020. Of course those odds were calculated after 2015 was a record high (beating 1998). Since 2015, the world temperature took a 1 Celsius nosedive in 2016, as a result of El Nino ending suddenly, and La Nina starting ... so maybe the so-called odds (if accurate) of a continued global warming hiatus are somewhat higher?
YourValentine · Member since
It's really frightening how people think they are smarter than the experts who have invested decades of learning and studying in a subject. It's also frightening how climate change deniers ignore the fact that the vast majority of experts really would have no advantage by "lying" about climate change while the deniers have clearly been funded by British Petroleum and others from the very start. So, who is the corrupt part in the discussion?
It's easier to simply deny the facts and stop all efforts to make a change in ruining the living conditions for generations to come on this planet. Yes, let us keep up our destructive lifestyle and do nothing to preserve the resources of this planet for our children and grand children. Now that the USA has elected a climate change denier for President all hope is lost, anyway.
Costa86 · Member since
Um, no, sorry Panchgani I don't agree. If anything, we underestimated the effect of climate change, and things are worse than scientists estimated they would be. Climate change is the most important challenge the world faces. More important than economic tribulation, terrorism and migration. Climate change denialists (not including you with them) are the most dangerous people on earth. And we now have a climate change denialist as the leader of the free world. We could potentially be fucked.
Oscar J · Member since
^ Good posts.
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Oscar J wrote: [/b] ^ Good posts.[/QUOTE]
Thank you
tilomagnet · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
It's really frightening how people think they are smarter than the experts who have invested decades of learning and studying in a subject. It's also frightening how climate change deniers ignore the fact that the vast majority of experts really would have no advantage by "lying" about climate change while the deniers have clearly been funded by British Petroleum and others from the very start. So, who is the corrupt part in the discussion?
[/QUOTE]
Umm no, I dont agree. The so-called "climate change experts" make their living by spreading overexaggerations about human caused climate change. Also their research funds depend on such alarming "results".
Personally, I dont deny human made climate change per se, but IMO the results of the various studies even by institutes that support the mainstream believe of human made climate change are often contradictory.
IMO this topic is mostly used by mainstream media and politicians to detract from much more serious and urgent issues and its perfect to milk the taxpayer of his hard earned money.
Oscar J · Member since
^ OK, so because "mainstream" (read established, non-extreme) media reports about the scientists findings, there must be some kind of agenda behind all of it. You don't need those damn "scientists" facts, because you have your own opinion. It's all a giant hoax to get your money.
"The so-called "climate change experts" make their living by spreading overexaggerations about human caused climate change." Would you bet the future of our planet on this though? Do you have any evidence of your own that make you feel a hundred percent safe about ignoring the alarms about rising sea levels, climate catastrophes and collapsing eco-systems?
"...results of the various studies even by institutes that support the mainstream believe of human made climate change are often contradictory. "
Results of different studies almost always vary and contradict each other. That's one of the most fundamental basics of science for you. But rarely are scientists in agreement of anything to such a high degree as on this particular topic.
Lastly it'd be interesting in what issues you think are more urgent to solve than something that potentially might affect every single person on earth.
Costa86 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
But rarely are scientists in agreement of anything to such a high degree as on this particular topic.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
YourValentine · Member since
Thank you, Oscar J! I wonder at which point in history we regressed from acknowledging scientific facts into "mainstream belief" like facts are a matter of faith. As yet no climate change denier was able to make a logic case to explain how thousands of international scientists can actually conspire to lie about scientific facts only to ... what? Make a living? benefit from the climate change industry? To erect a green global terror regime?
You are not a free spirit when you fall into the trap of a billion dollar petroleum industry. You are not a free thinker when you propagate absurd theories like truthers, birthers, climate change deniers do. When you need life saving surgery you won't go to an ignorant idiot who has a blog about the menace of modern medicine, you go to a surgeon who has learnt and studied and knows what he does. We should not hand over our future to conspiracy theorists.
tilomagnet · Member since
So youre accusing others of following conspiracy theorists but apparently the villainous Petroleum industry is behind all those climate change deniers?! alright.
Anyway, we need to realize that there has always been and will always be climate change. its a completely natural thing. problem is that there have been many episodes of faster and slower climate change, long before humans walked the earth, which means that its close to impossible to prove that there is indeed a more rapid climate change due to the industrial age.
Its getting really laughable when polititicians set out to stop or halt climate change by reducing CO2 and other emissions.
what is more urgent to me than climate change: refugee crisis and financial and economic crisis within the EU among others.
Saint Jiub · Member since
I am not a climate change denier, I only stated the importance is exaggerated. The 97% "concensus" is based on a small subset of ACTIVELY PUBLISHING climate scientists who have predisposed bias toward continued funding of their work.
The concensus amongst American meteorologists is merely 67%.
"Last month, a new survey of members of the American Meteorological Society confirmed as much. It turns out that just about an equal percentage of meteorologists accept that human activity is the primary cause climate change (67 percent) as the general public (65 percent, from the similarly worded Gallup poll)"
The concensus amongst American meteorologists is merely 67%.
[/QUOTE]
If you actually read the study:
67% say it's entirely caused by our species, with a further 21% saying it's at least partially caused by our species.
That makes 88%.
However - 97% of climate scientists (i.e. the actual experts who have been actively researching this topic daily for decades) agree that it's man made. Why cherry-pick for lower numbers?
Well, anyone with scientific literacy knows the answer - it's called confirmation bias.
Your inability to understand science isn't an argument against it.
