Climate change the coming Ice Age .

a reply to: Phage

I asked you a specific question though.

Do you think 97% of climate scientists believe man is the main cause of global warming?

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

I asked you a specific question though.

Too specific. I don't know what the percentage is and I don't really care. It could be 90%, it could be 99%. I think an overwhelming majority do.
Why? What's your point?

a reply to: Phage

Well Nasa and the IPCC say it is 97%.

So do you agree or disagree with Nasa and the IPCC?

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

So do you agree or disagree with Nasa and the IPCC?

Show me where they say that and I'll let you know.

a reply to: Phage

You don't have google?

NASA 97% CONSENSUS

Anyone that examines recent climate history from ice cores has to admit that the only constant in climate is change so we are likely to see more cold or more heat regardless of what humans do.

But in recent centuries our climate has been colder than normal and if the sun has anything to do with it, we could be in for another little ice age if the sun enters another Mauder Minimum.



Larger link

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

You don't have google?

I do. But that article isn't about climate scientists in general. It's about actively publishing climate scientists.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:

But the source isn't NASA or the IPCC though. The study which is footnoted does show that 97% of published authors who express an opinion about the proximate cause of warming attribute it to human influences. That is not the same thing as saying;

that 97% of climate scientists believe man is the main cause of global warming?

Is it? That's why I said I don't know the exact percentage. It's not really possible to know that.

a reply to: glend

Anyone that examines recent climate history from ice cores has to admit that the only constant in climate is change so we are likely to see more cold or more heat regardless of what humans do.

You know that the data for that chart ends more than 150 years ago, right?

But in recent centuries our climate has been colder than normal and if the sun has anything to do with it, we could be in for another little ice age if the sun enters another Mauder Minimum.

Well, the connection between low sunspot activity and insolation is not well established but yes, if insolation decreases things will cool down. They will also cool down if the Earth experiences prolonged and massive volcanic activity. But if those things don't happen, and if we keep burning fossil fuels at the same, things will get warmer, faster.

a reply to: Phage

NASA isn't arguing with the study are they? The URL has the words climate, NASA, gov, scientific and consensus in it...

Right below the title "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree" they have a graph showing "rapid" warming in the past few decades.

So spare me on the specifics okay? Everybody has been using this 97% figure to push their agenda...even you said 90-99%.

Hmm...I wonder where you got that number range from?

Either way, do you agree then that 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities?

a reply to: Greathouse
Sorry, your post fell victim to the "last on the page syndrome."

When the media hypes something I immediately become suspicious .

I mostly ignore it, or rather, research it.

You mentioned it earlier but your link took me to some chart .

Well, the chart is a compilation of published studies. You could start with the google search link I provided and develop your own database if you wish. I did a cursory look and the numbers seemed about right. Quite a lot about CO2 and warming, not much about cooling.

a reply to: Phage

Published studies of course there is no financial motivation in that is there. AKA a need for hype ?

Here's a chart from some of the scientist that predicted the Ice Age .

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Either way, do you agree then that 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities?

Why do you keep trying to pin me to that number? I said I don't know the exact number. I said I think a vast majority of scientists think that we are the proximate cause of warming.

But you are misrepresenting what the study about actively publishing climate scientists said. It said that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists who expressed an opinion on the proximate cause of warming said that cause was us. It said that 3% of actively publishing climate scientists who expressed an opinion on the proximate cause of warming said that cause was not us.

Tell me, have you actually read the study?

a reply to: Greathouse

Here's a chart from some of the scientist that predicted the Ice Age .

How many is "some?"
Didn't do so good, huh?

a reply to: Phage

Actually I searched your link and quite a few came up. Didn't really look did you ?




You're missing the entire point of this thread by the way. I'm not arguing on the weather ( pun intended )climate change is happening I am arguing that it is being misrepresented for financial gain . ( which goes hand-in-hand with hype )

But I couldn't help but notice you did not address my last post?



Edit;

I love sarcasm battles just like you .

a reply to: Phage

No its the number of years before the year 2000AD if you read bottom line of graph.

Given that no industrial age existed during many climate changes in the past 10,000 years its speculative as to what humans add to the equation.

I don't deny the earth can get warmer but if the reverse is true its a far more scarier outcome because we are not prepared for the repercussions of massive crop failure etc. LIA ... "famines, hypothermia, bread riots and the rise of despotic leaders brutalizing an increasingly dispirited peasantry"

a reply to: Greathouse

Actually I searched your link and quite a few came up. Didn't really look did you ?

Yes, I did.

I'm not arguing on the weather climate change is happening I am arguing that it is being misrepresented for financial gain .

How is it being misrepresented?

Do you think financial gain is inherently bad? Do you think that the efforts of private enterprise are evil even if they have the potential to improve the human condition, or at least slow its decline?

a reply to: glend

Given that no industrial age existed during many climate changes in the past 10,000 years its speculative as to what humans add to the equation.

No. It's physics.

I don't deny the earth can get warmer but if the reverse is true its a far more scarier outcome because we are not prepared for the repercussions of massive crop failure etc.

I agree. We are not prepared for rapid climate change. Due to warming or cooling.

a reply to: Phage

How am I misrepresenting it?

I am one who has read the study and actually understands it. Well, at least the information that the author of the study has chosen to release.

You obviously know the study is BS then which is why you aren't falling for my bait and agreeing with the sources that push the agenda you support.

So fine we will go back to what you said, that it could be 90% it could be 99% you don't know. However, you did state that you think an overwhelming majority do. Could you please link me your evidence of this?

Like most people have said, the debate is over right? Most people agree, most scientists agree. Almost EVERY single AGW supporter uses that 97% figure as their best argument.

Go ahead and play the games you play, sidestepping what you and I know is true, but where is the evidence that even a majority agree in AGW?

originally posted by: Phage

a reply to: Greathouse

I'm not arguing on the weather climate change is happening I am arguing that it is being misrepresented for financial gain . How is it being misrepresented?

Do you think financial gain is inherently bad? Do you think that the efforts of private enterprise are evil even if they have the potential to improve the human condition, or at least slow its decline?

I will address your whole post not part of it .

Either it misrepresented or you believe 100% everything that comes from every media source .

Is the media 100% accurate with all their past and current predictions ?

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

How am I misrepresenting it?

By saying this:

97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities?

Those are not the results of the study.

You obviously know the study is BS

On the contrary, I accept the results of the study for what they are; 97% of actively publishing climate scientists who expressed an opinion on the proximate cause of warming said that cause was us.

Like most people have said, the debate is over right?

I think so, yes.

So fine you can play the games you play and sidestep what you and I know is true, but where is the evidence that even a majority agree in AGW?

That would depend on how you define evidence.