Man Made Climate Change

Status
Not open for further replies.

rwc101

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
181
Location
Laramie, WY
Broken records noises.

Anyway, I would think twice about touting an article written by a fictional character as evidence against a scientific consensus. I read the article in Scientific Reports. It does not mention man made climate change. I would suggest reading the article itself rather than a summary of a press release.
 

madtom

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
515
Location
WY
And the only metric the article mentions is global warming. Climate change is much broader than just increasing temps.
 

3855WIN

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
962
Location
Mississippi
We need to be good stewards of the earth. How do we go about that? If we need to call it Climate Change or Global Warming to help us to remember to take care of this place, it’s probably a good thing.
I do know we need to take care of the oceans and streams. There’s really not much to debate about that.
It is interesting that some see this as a need to change and control the economy. Like most everything else, follow the money trail.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,209
Location
Aurora, CO
We need to be good stewards of the earth. How do we go about that? If we need to call it Climate Change or Global Warming to help us to remember to take care of this place, it’s probably a good thing.
I do know we need to take care of the oceans and streams. There’s really not much to debate about that.
It is interesting that some see this as a need to change and control the economy. Like most everything else, follow the money trail.
The devil's advocate position is that if you don't provide an economic incentive in a capitalistic society nothing will ever happen. Probably the best way to get serious investment in renewables is to make returns on them better than O&G, so that the major's invest in them. At the end of the day there really aren't any other companies with the expertise, and infrastructure to accomplish the large scale projects our country needs. Exxon could make a 50B investment without batting an eye, fracking has provided a huge bump in domestic energy production but the fall off on those wells is steep, and all energy companies will need to look to other fuel sources at some point.

To some extent this is already happening; Shell, Total, and BP are already trying to re-brand themselves as energy companies.

https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies/solar.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-04/total-teams-with-china-battery-maker-in-latest-shift-for-big-oil
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/alternative-energy.html

I had dinner with some shell folks a while back and they were saying their economic analysts think that by 2030-2035 returns on renewable energy will be better than hydrocarbons.
 

BucksnDucks

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
203
Location
Northern CA
Lately I have been noticing how people in the hunting /fishing industry seem to be more vocal about their stance on this issue. The ones speaking in public are almost entirely on the true believer of man made climate change side. I mostly hear this from younger people in the industry. It concerns when the so called "influencers" of this internet age just repeat talking points and assume it to stone cold science on an extremely complex issue. I was struck by one of the guys on the Meateater podcast being perplexed that calling an associate a "climate denier" was an insult. The context of the conversation was that there needs to be civil discussions about issues of concern. The opinion that you are either all in and believe the 97% of scientist agree (BS) or you are a science denier has to go.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,209
Location
Aurora, CO
I encourage you to read the cited study. The author is a retired physicist specializing in gas spectroscopy not a climatologist, the "study" has 2 authors, the primary and someone who worked for him in his lab. It has no methods section, it only has 6 citations 4 of which are articles written by the principle, it's not peer reviewed, it hasn't been accepted by a reputable peer reviewed journal.

While the author is indeed a scientist, it seems like he did a bit of arm chair 'science' because he didn't like that a variable he thought he new something about that wasn't included in a model, that he wasn't a part of developing. Basically he was pissed because he thought clouds should be factored into a climate model, but didn't reach out to the creators of the model ask why they weren't.

It's just sloppy pseudo science.
 
Last edited:

rwc101

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
181
Location
Laramie, WY
97% of scientist agree (BS)
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2018
Messages
24
Location
Colorado
To those who dispute the man made climate change issues, I do not understand why you refuse to accept the clear scientific consensus. The earth is warming and we are the ones causing it by burning fossil fuels. CO2 is the primary cause of the increased temperature and we are increasing the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere because of how we obtain our energy right now. You do not even need to be a scientist to see this warming trend - I am old enough at this point that my own memory of what climate was when I was a child vs. today shows significant differences. That being said, the science does clearly show that this is happening and we are causing it. If you were extremely ill and facing choices about a possible course of medical treatment, would you go with what the science shows would be successful medical treatment or would you choose a treatment developed by a geologist or an anthropologist who did a study (not yet subject to peer review and I do not see that it is published) that you learned about on "Zero Hedge." What is your end game? The costs of doing nothing vastly outweigh the costs of trying to do something about it in terms of what might happen with the economy. It just does not make any sense.
 

Sandpounder

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
62
I just wanted to kindof emphasize what has already been said about being careful about sources. I am glad wllm1313 evaluated the study cited. A blog from a hedge fund probably isn't the best source. Once people pick a side, its hard for people to look at things objectively, sometimes even scientists. I also think that pollution could be stressed more, it is pretty visible no matter what you think about the global return to normal, or the rate of the warming being faster than before. Even though oil and gas and coal pay my bills, I do lean towards the fast rate deal.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,148
Location
Wenatchee
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
GD it must get frustrating for some people when all these facts get in the way of a good belief system.
 

RockinU

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
410
Location
Texas
You can have questions without being hostile to the concept. I think one of the things that fuels the skeptics is all the sensational positions, projections, and predictions made by some alarmists (many of who are/were scientists) that simply have not come to pass. I remember things that were said of the deep water horizon spill in the gulf that were terrifying, predicted impacts that were just wildly inaccurate.

To me it would be silly to think that the number of people on this planet, and the amount of emissions we create has no effect on climate, or the things that influence climate. What I don't have a grasp of is how the system is equipped to deal with what we through at it. Nor have I seen a viable alternative to our current model. It seems apparent to me that we need to continue to work towards a more renewable system, but there isn't a system just waiting out there under a tarp for us to just uncover it, get in, fire it up and take off.

It's not a simple issue, and it's not going to have a simple solution.
 

BucksnDucks

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
203
Location
Northern CA
Science isn't religion, beliefs don't matter. Either there is measurable evidence or there isn't.
Yep, I agree. My concern is taking measurable evidence which is fact and stating a correlation/causation theory as fact. Like sand pounder said above, "Once people pick a side, its hard for people to look at things objectively, sometimes even scientists."
Data does not lie. People lie about data.
 

glass eye

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
1,133
Location
El Centro, CA
They lose credibility when they attribute increased shark attacks to global warming with no explanation of how that works, just put the blame there. Oh, and cow farts. Everything is attributed to climate change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top