Climate Change and Man Made Global Warming. Who's actually saying What?

a reply to: amazing

Anyway to actually answer your question - there are many options you can look at.

...
If you want a list of actual individual names, then the IPCC contributing authors’ list is a good place to start:

Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Authors and Review Editors

Many people wrongly assume the IPCC is this big organization that employs all these scientists to do their bidding, but this is not true. In fact they only have about a dozen full time staff. The hundreds of contributing authors are climate scientists from around the world who contribute their latest research voluntarily (unpaid), for which the IPCC basically acts as an aggregator.

If you want official scientific organizations that endorse the idea of man made climate change (like the list you got from NASA), then there are many other resources around the web. There’s a decent list from the Union of Concerned Scientists here, but honestly Wikipedia is as good a source as any, since all the info is referenced in the footnotes.

S tatements by scientific organizations of national or international standing

If you want more abstract (but definitive) numbers regarding the overall consensus, then there are 3 peer-reviewed papers which all arrived at the same famous 97% number:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (2009)

Expert credibility in climate change (2010)

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (2013)

Hope that helps a bit

originally posted by: amazing
Good input so far, but nothing I can hang my hat on. For the Record I do believe NASA on this, but who are you guys listening to? Who are you reading? Who makes up the consensus? Who is debunking this, Scientifically, and why should I listen to them?

Back in the 80s, it was discovered that a particular refrigerant, R-12, was destroying the ozone layer. As a result, R-12 was phased out. There was no debate, no these scientists vs. those scientists, it was just a matter of "we've got to stop using this stuff, no matter what the cost." And it was costly.

When I look at the man-made global warming debate today, I have to ask, "Who would want to destroy the entire Earth's environment for money?" We're not talking about a landfill or a toxic waste dump, we're talking about an extinction level event. I know that with today's divide and conquer politics we're told that those "other guys" are pure evil, but I think if we look deep down most of us would find it hard to believe that a large group of people knowingly want to destroy the human race in order to make a couple of bucks.

If this were a sure thing, and as bad as losing the ozone layer, there would be no debate. Governments and scientists would not be trying to convince people of anything. They would just do what needed to be done. If fossil fuels were the culprit, they would be phased out, no matter what the cost. Nobody would be saying, "You can still pollute as long as you pay extra for it."

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well raised taxes on those that don't want to comply with the added regulations, not just black and white raise taxes.
Not sure that is the best option though.

I don't have a solid end all solution, but again we need to walk before we run and all get on the same page that there is indeed a problem that needs a solution.

a reply to: Sremmos80

That's the thing. I think there are solutions out there. But they are so ugly, they are so anti-freedom, that tptb has to have everyone on board before they can enact it.

a reply to: mc_squared

Why ATS sucks is because people seem to have forgotten what we DO HERE.

DEBUNK real world TRUTHS.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

If this were a sure thing, and as bad as losing the ozone layer, there would be no debate. Governments and scientists would not be trying to convince people of anything. They would just do what needed to be done.

My thoughts exactly.

I've said it in other threads, if climate changed posed a threat to humanity there would be no debate.

I also find their accusations full of irony. They act as if we have a problem when most of us are just trying to survive. This global economy sure has it's drawbacks and if they wanted to slow the bleeding, maybe they should start here...

Big polluters: one massive container ship equals 50 million cars

April 23, 2009 The Guardian has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds 90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by volume.

Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.

I don't debate this topic much because once it has become a political talking point, I suddenly lose interest. Its manufactured BS designed to persuade us into adopting new economic slave systems. It isn't us that needs to curb our appetite, its THEM. Regardless of our demand, greed has facilitated our satisfaction. Facilitators are second to those with no self control and largely consume more than who they facilitate due to greed and profit.

If you think (Big)Science deosn't exist, think again (not at you). Information is a commodity, bought and sold. If you look at the bigger picture, those in control would be foolish not to harness the power of manipulative science. The average voter is an idiot, right? (except anyone reading this, lol.)

Shoot me.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: mc_squared

Why ATS sucks is because people seem to have forgotten what we DO HERE.

DEBUNK real world TRUTHS.

It didn't use to suck ... but with all the "truthers" around, it certainly is starting to.

Imagine, there are people here so blindly religious they think that their "FART" has changed the entire UNIVERSE.

Reality, is quite the opposite ... we are rabbits. We exist, because the climate change ... the climate didn't change because of us. We were capable of using electricity, because of climate change ... that increased the electrical discharges on the planet.

ALL we have, we were capable of doing because the climate CHANGED. The climate didn't change because we did it ... and this isn't a "chicken and the egg" thingy, it literally borders on retardism. Where people really think, that in this VAST universe, it really matters if they "fart". This thought isn't there on a "philosophical" basis, it's there on a real ... "belief" basis. People really believe, that the "universe" will change with their "fart"... they think we're "gods" ... instead of the animals we are.

We're just rabbits, eating dirt ... and it just so happens, the climate changed and made dirt "plenty". It's not the other way around.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Well when you simplify it to something so ridiculous then ya it is easy to make it seem so.

But this isn't about farts, this is about how we are changing the way this world looks, we are destroying all the trees, polluting more then it is has ever seen because we are rather new to the earth.

No one has ever burned all the fossil fuels before us, how can we say what is happening is just the normal recourse?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: DBCowboy

We have to agree that something needs to be solved before we can start talking solutions.

And people keep trying to throw out the whole topic any time a solution they don't agree with comes out.

Like cap and trade, since that isn't perfect it must mean that everything is a hoax.

I think the point is that some of us think that the solution is to slowly try and reduce the amount of true pollution (not CO2 and methane from cows) and keep our negative impact on the environment to a reasonable level. We didn't do that at all during the industrial revolution, but we are doing amazingly well in comparison now, even if there is still always room to better ourselves WITHOUT tax schemes and arbitrary carbon-footprint scare tactics, and without alarmism and hyperbole that does nothing but create a toxic divide within humanity, as two sides cling religiously to their semi-scientific beliefs.

I think that the earth has plenty of solutions at its disposal to maintain a balance over a climactic timeframe that there is nothing that we should (or really even can) do to reverse anything that is, IMO, inconclusively attributed to man's impact negatively on the climate. No one knows what the climate "should be," and the only reason there is such fear over change is because change can be scary, but the solution isn't to "fix" something that we might not be causing, it's to adapt as the changes occur.

Solutions to a maybe-problem are not what is needed--greater civility and a dramatic reduction in accusatory nonsense is what is needed. We need to stop people from hating others because of a (IMO) fabricated disaster scenario.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: bjarneorn

No one has ever burned all the fossil fuels before us, how can we say what is happening is just the normal recourse?

This is the hyperbole about which I spoke in my previous response--we haven't burned all of the fossil fuels. In fact, the reality of it is that we are not even close to burning all of the fossil fuels. We may be getting close to using up the sources that we know about, but let's not get hysterical.

The only proof of Man Made Global Warming I have seen is that CO2 absorbs some heat at ambient temperature, there fore there will be catastrophic global warming.

Since CO2 is in parts per ten thousand, as in hundreds of parts per million, I don't see how CO2 can raise the temperature of something 10,000 times bigger than it is.

In other words, CO2 would need to be 10,000 degrees hotter just to raise the atmospheric temperature one degree.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

It is clear that you have great ignorance in terms of science, radiative forcing and CO2's role in all of this.

Do you want to take a wild guess what the ppm levels of R-12(Freon) that was banned because of it's role of destroying the ozone layer?

Only a fool would try to argue that a vital gas with levels at 400ppm and rising fast is not significant.

originally posted by: mc_squared


Why ATS sucks these days: OP asks a simple question seeking out expert opinions on climate change. Instead they get nothing but worthless ones like this^

It is not just ATS. It seems like there are very few public forums where we can have an intelligent discussion without the thread getting trashed with mindless dribble.

Topics like this really bring out the sockpuppets, their blind followers and the predictable bunk arguments they bring to the climate 'debate.'

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It is clear that you have great ignorance in terms of science, radiative forcing and CO2's role in all of this.

Do you want to take a wild guess what the ppm levels of R-12(Freon) that was banned because of it's role of destroying the ozone layer?

Only a fool would try to argue that a vital gas with levels at 400ppm and rising fast is not significant.

Since no one explains radiative forcing it must be very "complicated". Probably magical.

Consider the energy involved. How can ambient temperature make anything hotter than ambient temperature?

You say significant is the same as catastrophic. You are an alarmist.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ok ya, all may have been a strong word.

My point was more that the earth hasn't gone through something burning fossil fuels at the level we are today.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ok ya, all may have been a strong word.

My point was more that the earth hasn't gone through something burning fossil fuels at the level we are today.

That is not proof that anything bad is happening or is going to happen.

All of that carbon and energy was on the Earth already. If anything, the Earth is cooling as the chemical bonds in the petroleum are broken into heat and that heat migrates away into space -- gone forever.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Never mentioned the word catastrophic, but go ahead and put words in my mouth....

You clearly are a denier of science.

Instead of me ELI5 the concept behind radiative forcing and CO2, why not do your own research and figure it on your own?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Never mentioned the word catastrophic, but go ahead and put words in my mouth....

You clearly are a denier of science.

Instead of me ELI5 the concept behind radiative forcing and CO2, why not do your own research and figure it on your own?

If its not catastrophic, what is the hurry?

Since you make claims on my property, my prosperity and my rights, and everyone else's prosperity and rights too--you should prove to me that your claim has validity. Obviously.

It seems that you don't understand your claim about radiative forcing, and feel no need for proof.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: mc_squared
DEBUNK real world TRUTHS.

Debunk real world truths? Isn't that lying?

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

If this were a sure thing, and as bad as losing the ozone layer, there would be no debate. Governments and scientists would not be trying to convince people of anything. They would just do what needed to be done.

My thoughts exactly.

I've said it in other threads, if climate changed posed a threat to humanity there would be no debate.

There ISN'T a debate in the rest of the world. For the most part, the only people who don't believe in man made climate change are right leaning Americans.