Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:55 pm**

Note that they say very likely. As scientists they never claim 100% certainty. However, as EVERY scientific organization in the world says, the overwhelming probability is that humans have caused the weather disasters we are currently experiencing.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:58 pm**

Also they DO claim that current weather patterns are outside the norm. Read your own post! The (i imagine quoted part,can you give a source for that quote?) quote you gave menrions dramatic changes.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:00 pm**

henry quirk wrote:Raw,

I asked these questions elsewhere (or, mebbe in this thread) and, as I recollect, got no answer.

Your turn...

-How many climatologists are there world-wide, and how many of these climatologists support the notion of human-driven climate change?

-How many scientists are there world-wide, and how many of these scientists support the notion of human-driven climate change?

I'll need formal citations, please.

Over 97%
Here, I will repeat myself. Look at the top , about the 97%!

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:01 pm**

raw_thought wrote:
raw_thought wrote:In response to the false claim that 97% of climate scientists do not endorse global warming.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -consensus
The fact is that the scientific consensus in favor of global warming is overwhelming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... ate_change
Yes, that is wiki. However note that they provide links to primary sources to each scientific organizations claims.
This next site (from Scientific American) takes on all the junk science from the global warming denier cult. Hockey stick…etc.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -nonsense/
Of course some may site the fraudulent Oregon petition
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Pe ... roject.htm
Of course some may site the fraudulent climategate. To say that we found a neat trick is like saying we found a neat trick to do this calculus problem in fewer steps
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate ... hacked.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
I will stick with NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/
The Royal Society,
It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.
FROM
https://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/
AND,
• American Chemical Society[54]
• American Institute of Physics[55]
• American Physical Society[56]
• Australian Institute of Physics[57]
• European Physical Society[58]

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Meteorological Society
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
United States National Research Council
Royal Society of New Zealand
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Science Foundation
InterAcademy Council
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America

Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
• American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[79]
• American Institute of Biological Sciences. In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement.[80][81] The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.[82]
• American Society for Microbiology[83]
• Australian Coral Reef Society[84]
• Institute of Biology (UK)[85]
• Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[86] and the UNFCCC.[87]
• The Wildlife Society (international)[88]
Human health
A number of health organizations have warned about the numerous negative health effects of global warming
• American Academy of Pediatrics[89]
• American College of Preventive Medicine[90]
• American Medical Association[91]
• American Public Health Association[92]
• Australian Medical Association in 2004[93] and in 2008[94]
• World Federation of Public Health Associations[95]
• World Health Organization[96]
• American Astronomical Society[97]
• American Statistical Association[98]
• The Institution of Engineers Australia[99]
• International Association for Great Lakes Research[100]
• Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[101]
• The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)
As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

NOAA says that we are getting warmer and breaking records! *
"The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.
The global land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), the second highest on record for August, behind 1998.
For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June?August period was also record high for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), beating the previous record set in 1998.
The June?August worldwide land surface temperature was 0.91°C (1.64°F) above the 20th century average, the fifth highest on record for this period. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average, the highest on record for June?August. This beats the previous record set in 2009 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).
FROM
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506
Other factors have been ruled out by the entire world's scientific community
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm

At least read this link!!!
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:11 pm**

-How many climatologists are there world-wide, and how many of these climatologists support the notion of human-driven climate change?

-How many scientists are there world-wide, and how many of these scientists support the notion of human-driven climate change?

Not interested in what 'organizations' say (more accurately, not interested in what the leadership of these organizations say)

Numbers please.

Posted a link, but deleted it...will save my thunder for later.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:18 pm**

raw_thought wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:NASA, Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society, NOAA are not primary sites???
Do you know the difference between the word cite and site?
Yes. I am using a tablet and have big fat fingers! I am sure that you will find other spellinh errors.
Is that all you got??? No facts just complaints about spellinh errors?

It's not a spelling error, but an error of understanding.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:36 pm**

raw_thought, you are doing exactly what I am suggesting - imagining that we are experiencing disasters we've not experienced before. Your examples are not weather extremes that have not been seen before.

The IPCC, the main body making projections about impacts of climate change (from whom I drew that quote), uses the terminology of likelihood. Various impacts are likely, very likely, they have a low confidence or a high confidence etc. Now surely it's clear that if the changes had actually happened, that is for example that weather extremes have changed in severity, then they could claim with certainty. The reason they can't is that as yet they don't have certainty in most cases and that's because there is no NORM. There are simply trends over time, and the current observations, the current data, suggests changes to these trends of greater or lesser degree.

Now, there's no way you can claim that the world would be cooler if it weren't for global warming. That is a guess. It could be so, it might not be. Certainly it was never claimed to be the case a decade or more ago, but it does get trotted out now that global temperatures are not following the climate model projections.

Extremes of weather are projected to increase in severity but so far there is no definitive evidence for that. Yes, the costs of what extreme events there are has increased, but it's hard to claim that is a direct result of changes in frequency or intensity.

The same applies to many other projected changes. It may be quite dry in the south-west and that may be outside of historical norms of the past 100 years, but it sure isn't for the past thousand years.

I also mentioned the Noachian floods in the south-west, look that up sometime. Extremes happen all the time.

You suggest July was the hottest July on record. I'd dispute that. There are temperature indices that do not show that, and you might also look at the error bars associated with the values. Regardless, it was only the hottest by a very small (negligible) margin in those indices in which it was hottest and statistically there has been no change in the 'pause'. I would imagine we might see some 'hottest' months in the next 6 months due to El Nino. But bear in mind the global average temperature is an average - if it's warmer than usual in one place it doesn't follow that everywhere is warmer.

Personally, while I don't pretend to know more than scientists, I've read a lot about climate change and I do think it's a great conspiracy, albeit not an overt one. I think behind the scenes there is a lot more uncertainty than you'd think from what you get listening to major science bodies and the media. I'd suggest there has been precious little change or impacts that are significantly out of the usual when you look at trends over the past 1000 or more years. I would not disagree that we have seen trends that are what could be expected from anthropogenic driven climate change, but I don't think they are, or will be, of the significance that alarmists are so apt to predict or claim.

That said, I think governments should act upon the advice from scientists - the experts - and therefore should be developing climate change policy. Whether the scientists are right or wrong remains to be seen, but they ARE the experts and thus governments would be negligent not to act upon expert advice.

My view is just my view and I am not proposing anyone believes me or acts upon what I think.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:43 pm**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Do you know the difference between the word cite and site?

Yes. I am using a tablet and have big fat fingers! I am sure that you will find other spellinh errors.
IME

It's not a spelling error, but an error of understanding.[/quote]
Whatever, so I make minor spelling errors in a casual debate.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:46 pm**

The frequency and intensity of weather events has increased. The entire world's scientific community is aware of the earth's weather history and have concluded that our current extremes are not natural.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:01 pm**

PS;
I was right and you were wrong
It is "internet SITES. Not "internet cites"!
I just enjoyed letting you obsess.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:02 pm**

raw_thought wrote:The entire world's scientific community is aware of the earth's weather history and have concluded that our current extremes are not natural.

Maybe you could find a quote to support that?

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:08 pm**

Scroll back.
That huge post of mine includes sites with quotes. Since (as I proved) every scientific organization in the world agrees that we have caussd global warming (AGW), that means that they have eliminated natural causes. However, that long post of mine includes sites that explain why natural causes can be dismissed. Especially, the Scientific American site.(answers to contrarian nonsense).

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:19 pm**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:NASA, Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society, NOAA are not primary sites???
Do you know the difference between the word cite and site?

Umm it is sites not cites!

Posted: **Wed Aug 26, 2015 10:27 am**

raw_thought wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:NASA, Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society, NOAA are not primary sites???
Do you know the difference between the word cite and site?
Umm it is sites not cites!

FFS. You claimed that you "cited". Any moron can Google. It takes a brain to understand what you are citing.

Posted: **Wed Aug 26, 2015 10:43 am**

raw_thought wrote:Scroll back.
That huge post of mine includes sites with quotes. Since (as I proved) every scientific organization in the world agrees that we have caussd global warming (AGW), that means that they have eliminated natural causes. However, that long post of mine includes sites that explain why natural causes can be dismissed. Especially, the Scientific American site.(answers to contrarian nonsense).

Your links go to Nationally and Corporately funded mega-institutions charged with proving that GW is caused by humans. Since we've known this for at least 100 years what they are actually doing is providing data for the control of Oil resources worldwide.

Claiming that 97% of scientists agree that AGW ir a reality is meaningless, and inaccurate. Your claims are hysterical, when what we really need to know is TO WHAT DEGREE GW is the result of human activity, and to what degree changing that behaviour might ameliorate GW, and of course is this actually desirable.

It has been a cause celebre that the oil is going to run out sooner than later. So some means was required to ration oil use to extend its period of plenty whilst alternatives were sought. To this end the IPCC thought up by Thatcher who also wanted a stick to beat the coal miners over the head with: propaganda about the Carbon emissions from coal.
Since the IPCC was set up in the early 80s by Thatcher and Ray-gun, they have dutifully provided the needed data for governments to control fossil fuel resources with Carbon Quotas that have been busily exchanged for hard cash. However none of this vigorous activity has led to the use of one litre less oil. In fact the use of oil has increased as the means by which it has been squeezed from the earth has improved.

There are negative consequences from this. Environmentalism has become a one trick pony largely focussing on Carbon, whilst far more important issues have received less attention than they deserve. It's as if the loss of half the world's forests had no effect at all. And the introduction of carbon quotas makes it look as if something has been done; when in fact this has resulted in nada.

Philosophy Now Forum

Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re:

Re: Climate Change

"I will repeat myself"

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change