Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum banner

Do you believe man is the major contributer to climate change?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 44.0%
  • No

    Votes: 42 56.0%

  • Total voters
    75
2521 - 2540 of 2630 Posts

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
3,846 Posts
There are multiple lines of evidence that show the climate system is changing. These include:

record high surface air temperatures

increased average number of hot days per year

decreased average number of cold days per year

increasing intensity and frequency of extreme events (e.g. fires, floods)

changing rainfall patterns

increasing sea surface temperatures

rising sea levels

increasing ocean heat content

increasing ocean acidification

changing Southern Ocean currents

melting ice caps and glaciers

decreasing Arctic sea ice




And this is how they must steamroll everyone into believing, knowing most people won't go and read every other "report" to find more info. Especially when you spruk it often and loud enough.
Since when does a list like that constitute evidence.

Your Honour I'd like to add into evidence in the case of the smith murders:-
He did it.

Oh I must have made a mistake with my "data" too earlier. It looks like a 12% differential between believers and non believers. See how easy it is to create BS. 12% to 30% is a massive difference when you are trying to get your message across to suit your agenda. Makes me wonder how easy it to create a catastrophe when you are only needing to find 1 degree from averages. Or trying to justify that 1 degree is catastrophic.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
43,551 Posts
So, shouldn't this be at least as concerning to climate alarmists? If it is at this level here, how bad would they think it is in places like India and Indonesia, where a river became blocked by discarded plastic. This is indisputable fact.

'Australians throw out 3.5 million tonnes of plastic each year, but currently only around 10 per cent of it is recycled'.

 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,577 Posts
There are multiple lines of evidence that show the climate system is changing. These include:

record high surface air temperatures

increased average number of hot days per year

decreased average number of cold days per year

increasing intensity and frequency of extreme events (e.g. fires, floods)

changing rainfall patterns

increasing sea surface temperatures

rising sea levels

increasing ocean heat content

increasing ocean acidification

changing Southern Ocean currents

melting ice caps and glaciers

decreasing Arctic sea ice




And this is how they must steamroll everyone into believing, knowing most people won't go and read every other "report" to find more info. Especially when you spruk it often and loud enough.
Since when does a list like that constitute evidence.

Your Honour I'd like to add into evidence in the case of the smith murders:-
He did it.

Oh I must have made a mistake with my "data" too earlier. It looks like a 12% differential between believers and non believers. See how easy it is to create BS. 12% to 30% is a massive difference when you are trying to get your message across to suit your agenda. Makes me wonder how easy it to create a catastrophe when you are only needing to find 1 degree from averages. Or trying to justify that 1 degree is catastrophic.
Don't know where you are pulling that "quote" from.
No source given. Hardly uncommon in this thread.
I guess we will thus assume all these scientific punters and government organisations were more easily flummoxed than the vigilant sceptics on here.

Peer-reviewed research

The peer-review process involves scientists evaluating the quality of other scientists’ work. It provides a mechanism to quality control scientific discourse and peer-reviewed papers, by ensuring that the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already know. . Climate change science that has been peer-reviewed therefore provides a reliable and quality assured source of information.

To publish in most scientific journals, conference proceedings, and to apply for grants, scientists have to go through a peer review process. The peer review process is usually a 'blind' review. This means that the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This process is designed to ensure evaluation is independent.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses the peer-reviewed literature on climate change every five to six years, and publishes its findings in Assessment Reports. The IPCC reports are themselves subject to an intense peer-review process involving hundreds of scientific experts and government reviewers. This unprecedented level of peer and government review makes this compendium of climate change science one of the most scrutinised documents in the history of science.

The Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report, released by the IPCC in 2013, provides stronger evidence than ever that the Earth’s climate is changing and human activities are the primary cause.



We should send an assignment from P4x4 to sort these bastards out at the next IPCC.

Should be fairly easily convinced by a few wattsupwiththat anecdotes and newscorp clippings
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
3,846 Posts
Don't know where you are pulling that "quote" from.
No source given.
Actually odd you say that warty, I'm quoting you and one of the links you have provided and pulled the quote from.

By the way have you got the link handy that I can look at that lists the number of climate related scientists there are and what the percentage or number is that for and against the data to define the issue.if possible I'd like to see the official documentation of that vote or decision. Is there a copy of the referendum or minutes of the meeting where this consensus was ratified.
 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,577 Posts
Actually odd you say that warty, I'm quoting you and one of the links you have provided and pulled the quote from.

By the way have you got the link handy that I can look at that lists the number of climate related scientists there are and what the percentage or number is that for and against the data to define the issue.if possible I'd like to see the official documentation of that vote or decision. Is there a copy of the referendum or minutes of the meeting where this consensus was ratified.
I have posted numerous times the definition of a "scientific consensus". Scientists who assert there is scientific consensus.

My previous post contained information regarding the level of scrutiny that has been applied the the data and science of climate change.
Your response has been to apparently not read it.
I am yet to see evidence of a single scientific organisation that disputes anthropogenic climate change.
There is an international agreement to limit CO2 emissions based on science.

I am the only one posting evidence.
I understand your opinion, and those who dispute that climate change is occuring.
What I don't see is any evidence to substantiate that opinion.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
43,551 Posts
Single scientific organisations, Oh yes they are the ones who make money out of man made climate change, anyway did you read my link that CO2 is yesterdays news? Plenty of evidence has been posted from many experienced scientists on debunking man made climate change so I'm not sure what your talking about there.

NOx is the 'catastrophic' greenhouse gas that overtakes CO2 in potency at 300 to 1 according to research. CO2 makes up 0.033% of the atmosphere, so lets say it 'catastrophically' jumps 50% tomorrow, that makes it 0.0495% of the atmosphere, as the famous 'catastrophic' line from Monty Python says "run away, run away"

Once more I'll say the immediate threat to much of the world is 'Plastics', and Greta reckons her childhood was stolen.

Anyway.
"Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
This means each molecule of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere can capture 300 times more heat than a molecule of carbon dioxide.
However, not only do we emit considerably more carbon dioxide than we do nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide also stays in the atmosphere for thousands and thousands of years — compared to just over 100 years for nitrous oxide.
So getting carbon dioxide emissions under control is still key to tackling climate change, but nitrous oxide and methane emissions are part of the picture too".


So, lets explore that 'Picture' referred to in the quote.

514039



514033


Giant plastic berg blocks Indo River
514034


514035


514036


514038


514037
 

·
Premium Member
Patrol Hybrid.
Joined
·
11,174 Posts
We used to walk on the beach at Cape Flattery, very isolated, the amount of plastic, nets, ropes and other discarded rubbish on the beach was mind blowing.
 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,577 Posts
Single scientific organisations, Oh yes they are the ones who make money out of man made climate change, anyway did you read my link that CO2 is yesterdays news? Plenty of evidence has been posted from many experienced scientists on debunking man made climate change so I'm not sure what your talking about there.

NOx is the 'catastrophic' greenhouse gas that overtakes CO2 in potency at 300 to 1 according to research. CO2 makes up 0.033% of the atmosphere, so lets say it 'catastrophically' jumps 50% tomorrow, that makes it 0.0495% of the atmosphere, as the famous 'catastrophic' line from Monty Python says "run away, run away"

Once more I'll say the immediate threat to much of the world is 'Plastics', and Greta reckons her childhood was stolen.

Anyway.
"Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
This means each molecule of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere can capture 300 times more heat than a molecule of carbon dioxide.
However, not only do we emit considerably more carbon dioxide than we do nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide also stays in the atmosphere for thousands and thousands of years — compared to just over 100 years for nitrous oxide.
So getting carbon dioxide emissions under control is still key to tackling climate change, but nitrous oxide and methane emissions are part of the picture too".

So lets explore that 'Picture' referred to in the quote.

View attachment 514039


View attachment 514033

Giant plastic berg blocks Indo River
View attachment 514034

View attachment 514035

View attachment 514036

View attachment 514038

View attachment 514037
"Single scientific organisations"

People are disputing the scientific consensus on climate change without pulling out a single organisation that disputes it.
The argument appears to be that the science is wrong (I assume that is your intent with a couple of piecharts) and those who signed off on the Paris agreement were misled by scientists and scientific advice. This from people without a science background and providing no substantiation for that opinion.

Now rather than address that inconsistency the response from you is to say that plastic is worse.
That may be so. I am not arguing it.
However where is your thread on it Ross?
You usually seem intent on keeping threads on track, but here you seem intent on derailing it with another subject.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
43,551 Posts
That the best you've got? All these things impact on the 'climate' in which we live. No comment on the atmosheric numbers I put up? surely they must be wrong!
 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,577 Posts
That the best you've got? All these things impact on the 'climate' in which we live. No comment on the atmosheric numbers I put up? surely they must be wrong!
You seem to be confusing "environment" with "climate" as far as the plastic goes.

I have posted the definition of scientific consensus.
I have posted scientist assertions that there is scientific consensus on global warming.
I have pointed out there is an international agreement to limit emissions.
I have shown that it is based on peer reviewed science around climate change.
I have posted the mechanism behind the greenhouse effect.
I have posted there are "many lines of evidence" showing a rise in global temperature.
Apparently you didn't read them then. Why would you read them now?

Where is your alternate theory and the peer reviewed articles confirming that somehow the scientific consensus is wrong?
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
43,551 Posts
You seem to be confusing "environment" with "climate" as far as the plastic goes.

I have posted the definition of scientific consensus.
I have posted scientist assertions that there is scientific consensus on global warming.
I have pointed out there is an international agreement to limit emissions.
I have shown that it is based on peer reviewed science around climate change.
I have posted the mechanism behind the greenhouse effect.
I have posted there are "many lines of evidence" showing a rise in global temperature.
Apparently you didn't read them then. Why would you read them now?

Where is your alternate theory and the peer reviewed articles confirming that somehow the scientific consensus is wrong?
I've read most of your input so stop putting words in my mouth please. Go back and read some of the info I and others have posted over the years from various scientists who have disagreed and they have just as much in the academic field as your lot, but like most dedicated catastrophic climate change purveyors these people get shoved to the back and the doom and gloomsters win the day because that is a headline.

No not really mixing up they intertwine, plastic particles are found everywhere and they go

Still no comment on my numbers?
 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,577 Posts
I've read most of your input so stop putting words in my mouth please. Go back and read some of the info I and others have posted over the years from various scientists who have disagreed and they have just as much in the academic field as your lot, but like most dedicated catastrophic climate change purveyors these people get shoved to the back and the doom and gloomsters win the day because that is a headline.

No not really mixing up they intertwine, plastic particles are found everywhere and they go

Still no comment on my numbers?
You still have not named one scientific organisation that disputes the science of climate change. I have posted the definition of "scientific consensus" numerous times. It does not mean 100% agreement.
You have posted a handful of individual scientists who dispute aspects of climate change. There is peer review that disagrees with them ime
You have confirmation bias it would appear given the weight of evidence you have to sift through to find some that supports your stance.
You are not a scientist but dispute the scientific consensus without any clear evidence why.
What comment do want with respect to your numbers? What point are you trying to make?
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
2,658 Posts
Simple...

Man is NOT warming the planet...it's natural...

Man IS polluting the planet...micro organisms in the sea are NOT supposed to contain micro particles of plastic, river's are NOT supposed to be blocked by plastic...
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
I am the only one posting evidence.
LOL, quoting a TV scientist stating there is a consensus with no links to any peer reviewed evidence of said consensus, is not evidence.

posting a definition of consensus, is not evidence a consensus exists.

i have posted a few times in this thread the links to articles debunking the two papers Cook et al published claiming there was a consensus. I even posted the paper that was accepted by the scientific journal which then withdrew Cooks second paper as the scientific methodology was flawed.

throughout this thread I have posted numerous links to peer reviewed and published papers that do not fit the consensu, nor the CAGW models. If you choose not to read them, that’s fine. Just don’t suggest that they haven’t been posted
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
43,551 Posts
@thrayou and I both mate, we get accused of not reading, but I'm pretty sure I know who the real culprit is, to and fro evidence and observations go right back to the beginnings of this thread.
I like this leaked report.
 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,577 Posts
LOL, quoting a TV scientist stating there is a consensus with no links to any peer reviewed evidence of said consensus, is not evidence.

throughout this thread I have posted numerous links to peer reviewed and published papers that do not fit the consensu, nor the CAGW models. If you choose not to read them, that’s fine. Just don’t suggest that they haven’t been posted
I have posted multiple links and multiple sources of evidence.
Multiple scientific organisations validating the scientific consensus.
Multiple sources of climate evidence.
There is an international climate agreement based on peer reviewed climate science.

You have posted a wattsupwiththat link in response to the scientists asserting there is scientific consensus and explaining the term "scientific consensus."

You seem to be under the impression there are other broadly accepted mechanisms behind global warming but cannot cite a single scientific organisation that is prepared to argue the case.

Again scientific consensus does not mean 100% agreement.
Try reading this again.
You don't need to be a scientist to understand it but it explains the concept.

 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,577 Posts
@thrayou and I both mate, we get accused of not reading, but I'm pretty sure I know who the real culprit is, to and fro evidence and observations go right back to the beginnings of this thread.
I like this leaked report.
A daily mail article. That is a ripper Ross.
Peer reviewed scientific excellence it is.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
43,551 Posts
A daily mail article. That is a ripper Ross.
Peer reviewed scientific excellence it is.
Lol, love it. Mate read it, the 'scientists' admitted to it :). Lets not forget the Himalayan ice was going to be gone by 2014, was that prediction from the same group of peer reviewed scientific articles?

I'm bored with the same replies, 'your not reading what I post', bye.
 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,577 Posts
Lol, love it. Mate read it, the 'scientists' admitted to it :). Lets not forget the Himalayan ice was going to be gone by 2014, was that prediction from the same group of peer reviewed scientific articles?

I'm bored with the same replies, 'your not reading what I post', bye.
You mean Judith Curry?



David Rose and Dr Curry have quite the partnership going.
 
2521 - 2540 of 2630 Posts
Top