Climate Change

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You said the quiet bit out loud "I am too intelligent to listen to scientific consensus so I will disregard it

Oh dear Lord. I suppose we all only hear (or read) what we want to……..

“Scientific consensus? There is no consensus, there very rarely is in “science”. Because unlike many people on this forum, scientists know they don’t know everything and that there’s a better than average chance they’re wrong.

I also don’t disregard anything. I just seek as much information as I can, from as many sources as I can, and then form my own opinion.

As opposed to having my opinion given to me.

So, having intelligently done your "due diligence", where is the evidence that the consensus is wrong?

Well you’ll have to tell me exactly what the “consensus” is?

If you mean, is the climate changing? I’ve never disputed that.

If it’s more than that, then tell me what it is

Again, thank you. You have also confirmed that, at least for you, it is all about the money.

Absolutely it is, and when you have to pay £12,000 for heat pump equipment that doesn’t heat your house properly and change all your radiators, and probably have spend a further few grand to insulate your house, when you’re paying more than you’re paying now for your energy. When you have to pay £15 a day to drive out the street you live in, when your summer holiday is prohibitively expensive. I could go on and on.

Or maybe you’re so fabulously wealthy non of this matter to you.

But do you know who it does matter to?

All the parts of the world in my previous post, who don’t give a toss what you think, they’ll burn their coal, use their oil, burn their gas and will use their internal combustion engines. Because it’s cheap.

So can have a cheap dig me, my pleasure. But it doesn’t matter what I think. Or what you think.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

“Scientific consensus? There is no consensus, there very rarely is in “science”. Because unlike many people on this forum, scientists know they don’t know everything and that there’s a better than average chance they’re wrong.

I also don’t disregard anything. I just seek as much information as I can, from as many sources as I can, and then form my own opinion.

As opposed to having my opinion given to me.

Well you’ll have to tell me exactly what the “consensus” is?

If you mean, is the climate changing? I’ve never disputed that.

If it’s more than that, then tell me what it is.

It is strange that when you assert that there is no consensus, I have to do the work to prove there is. Anyway, here goes:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...limate-change/

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change. Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contain errors or cannot be replicated

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ac2966

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....70467619886266

The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.

https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/long-s...global-warming

Long-standing consensus on the human origin of global warming

https://bonpote.com/en/did-the-scien...nge-reach-100/

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes was the first to quantify the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. She analyzed 928 scientific articles on global climate change, and not a single peer-reviewed publication rejected the consensus of human-caused global warming.

Subsequent studies have since then confirmed this consensus. To get a sense of the exact percentage of scientists who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming, John Cook conducted a meta-analysis in 2016 and came to the following conclusion: the expert consensus oscillates between 90 and 100%, with most studies finding 97% consensus.

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...ctivities.html

A 2021 survey published in the peer-reviewed publication Environmental Research Letters surveyed more than 88,125 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020. The study authors found that more than 99.9 percent of peer-reviewed scientific papers agreed that climate change is caused by humans. (This updated a 2013 figure that found 97 percent of studies between 1991 and 2012 supported human-caused climate change.)

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a U.S.-based scientific nonprofit advocacy group, wrote in 2017 that scientists agree that global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause.

In 2009, 18 U.S. scientific associations reaffirmed their position supporting climate change in a letter sent to legislatures, writing that, "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

Other scientific institutions that have published statements supporting human-related climate change and the years they were published include the following:

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2014): "Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening."

American Chemical Society (2016-19): "The Earth's climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, and human activity is the primary cause.

American Geophysical Union (2019): "Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence."

American Medical Association (2022): "Our AMA ... Supports scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant. These climate changes have adversely affected the physical and mental health of people. "

American Meteorological Society (2019): "Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades. Its manifestation includes the warming of the atmosphere and oceans, intensification of the heaviest precipitation over continental areas, increasing upper-ocean acidity, increasing frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes, reductions in Northern Hemisphere snow and ice, and rising global sea level."

American Physical Society (2021): "Earth's climate is changing. This critical issue poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant driver of global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century."

The Geological Society of America (GSA) (2022): "GSA's position statement on climate change recognizes that 'human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of rapid warming since the middle 1900s' and 'addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and mitigation of future impacts through global reductions of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic sources.'"

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. Human activities largely determine the evolution of the Earth's climate, which not only impact the next few decades, but the coming centuries and millennia."

At this point, I got bored.

However, I did find some interesting articles on Climate Change Denial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Climate change denial or global warming denial is dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change.

Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.

Climate change denial includes doubts to the extent of how much climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action. Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism, pseudoscience, or propaganda.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2...mate-emergency

A document claiming that 'there is no climate emergency' has been circulating on social media.

The two main Dutch actors behind the declaration are Guus Berkhout, a retired geophysicist who has worked for oil giant Shell, and journalist Marcel Crok.

Both have been accused of receiving money from fossil fuel companies to finance their climate-sceptic work. They deny the allegations,

When looking closer at the list of signatories, there are precisely 1,107, including six people who are dead. Less than 1% of the names listed describe themselves as climatologists or climate scientists.

Eight of the signatories are former or current employees of the oil giant Shell, while many other names have links to mining companies.

One of the signatories is Ivar Giaever, a joint winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for work on superconductors. However, he has never published any work on climate science.

According to an independent 2019 count of the declaration's signatories, 21% were engineers, many linked to the fossil fuel industry. Others were lobbyists, and some even worked as fishermen or airline pilots.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Absolutely it is, and when you have to pay £12,000 for heat pump equipment that doesn’t heat your house properly and change all your radiators, and probably have spend a further few grand to insulate your house, when you’re paying more than you’re paying now for your energy. When you have to pay £15 a day to drive out the street you live in, when your summer holiday is prohibitively expensive. I could go on and on.

Or maybe you’re so fabulously wealthy non of this matter to you.

But do you know who it does matter to?

All the parts of the world in my previous post, who don’t give a toss what you think, they’ll burn their coal, use their oil, burn their gas and will use their internal combustion engines. Because it’s cheap.

So can have a cheap dig me, my pleasure. But it doesn’t matter what I think. Or what you think.

So for you, yes it just about the money. Not a problem if this was just you but we have people who think like you, who will stop or slow down the changes needed to mitigate Climate Change. You, and people like you, will be the reason why change will not be achieved in time.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

It is strange that when you assert that there is no consensus, I have to do the work to prove there is. Anyway, here goes:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...limate-change/



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change



https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ac2966



https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....70467619886266



https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/long-s...global-warming



https://bonpote.com/en/did-the-scien...nge-reach-100/



https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...ctivities.html



At this point, I got bored.

However, I did find some interesting articles on Climate Change Denial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial



https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2...mate-emergency

Well what a waste of time that was….for you.

I don’t intend to waste mine, I’ve already done my own research. My research showed the climate is changing..duh.

My research also showed me that there is no “emergency”, there is no climate “boiling” and that money spent on hair brained schemes like “net-zero” would be better spent lifting people out of poverty globally. So that they think less about how they can feed their family, to not thinking about that, and being able to think about the environment.

So for you, yes it just about the money.

Sorry Paul, Hugh, infractions accepted……..Ian, on this matter……… you are a gigantic cockhead.

Not a problem if this was just you but we have people who think like you, who will stop or slow down the changes needed to mitigate Climate Change. You, and people like you, will be the reason why change will not be achieved in time.

Ian, are you going to advise the people of: Africa, India and much of Asia, South America this revelation? Otherwise it’s you and your virtue signalling mates against 7 billion people………I already know who wins.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well what a waste of time that was….for you.

I don’t intend to waste mine, I’ve already done my own research. My research showed the climate is changing..duh.

My research also showed me that there is no “emergency”, there is no climate “boiling” and that money spent on hair brained schemes like “net-zero” would be better spent lifting people out of poverty. So that they think less about how they can feed their family, to not thinking about that, and being able to think about the environment.





Sorry Paul, Hugh, infractions accepted……..Ian, on this matter……… you are a gigantic cockhead.



Ian, are you going to advise the people of: Africa, India and much of Asia, South America this revelation? Otherwise it’s you and your virtue signalling mates against 7 billion people………I already know who wins.

You said there was no consensus, you lied.

So you have determined:

"My research also showed me that there is no “emergency”"

This must be compelling research, can you share it here?

---------- Post added at 18:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well what a waste of time that was….for you.

I don’t intend to waste mine, I’ve already done my own research. My research showed the climate is changing..duh.

My research also showed me that there is no “emergency”, there is no climate “boiling” and that money spent on hair brained schemes like “net-zero” would be better spent lifting people out of poverty globally. So that they think less about how they can feed their family, to not thinking about that, and being able to think about the environment.





Sorry Paul, Hugh, infractions accepted……..Ian, on this matter……… you are a gigantic cockhead.



Ian, are you going to advise the people of: Africa, India and much of Asia, South America this revelation? Otherwise it’s you and your virtue signalling mates against 7 billion people………I already know who wins.

Thanks for the insults, much appreciated.

I am not sure how proving you are lying is virtue signalling? Seems more of a public service to me

Again, for lazy amongst us:

https://theconversation.com/a-tale-o...matters-188865

India’s 2030 climate targets

India’s new climate commitments include two primary targets for 2030. One is to reduce emissions per unit of gross domestic product, or GDP, by 45%, relative to the year 2005. The other is to increase “non-fossil” electricity – solar, wind, nuclear and hydropower – to half of the country’s electricity capacity.

While these targets are an improvement over India’s commitments when it joined the Paris climate agreement in 2015, they are largely a continuation of the country’s “business-as-usual” emissions trajectory. A fast-growing country can reduce its emissions per GDP and increase its emissions.

Views differ on whether this is acceptable. There is considerable debate around what each country’s “fair share” of the global carbon budget is, given industrialized countries’ significantly larger contribution to per capita and cumulative greenhouse emissions.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

It is strange that when you assert that there is no consensus, I have to do the work to prove there is. Anyway, here goes:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...limate-change/



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change



https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ac2966



https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....70467619886266



https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/long-s...global-warming



https://bonpote.com/en/did-the-scien...nge-reach-100/



https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...ctivities.html



At this point, I got bored.

However, I did find some interesting articles on Climate Change Denial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial


https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2...mate-emergency



So for you, yes it just about the money. Not a problem if this was just you but we have people who think like you, who will stop or slow down the changes needed to mitigate Climate Change. You, and people like you, will be the reason why change will not be achieved in time.

Did any of those group thinkers who are convinced that man's activities are the cause of climate change consider the 140,000 year cycles and where we are in that cycle?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You said there was no consensus, you lied.

You do know what consensus means …..don’t you.

Definitions of consensus. agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.

The “whole” scientific community does not agree, and you have to posit the question in any event.


I have been clear from the outset, I have not ever denied that the climate is changing. I have, however, refuted that there is an emergency and believe net-zero is a folly.

So you have determined:

"My research also showed me that there is no “emergency”"

This must be compelling research, can you share it here?

Well read these, then we can talk.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/False-Alarm...c=1&th=1&psc=1

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apocalypse-...a-919059650281

Thanks for the insults, much appreciated.

and at no extra charge!

I am not sure how proving you are lying is virtue signalling? Seems more of a public service to me

You’ve ignored/ deflected the question at least three times now. So I’ll try again, not holding my breath:

(PS your link about India, isn’t what you think it is, if you actually read it)

Again: Ian, are you going to advise the people of: Africa, India and much of Asia, South America this revelation? Otherwise it’s you and your virtue signalling mates against 7 billion people………I already know who wins.

And by the above, I mean that all those nations and parts of the planet, must……..by your measure…….also participate in net zero. Otherwise what’s the point?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Did any of those group thinkers who are convinced that man's activities are the cause of climate change consider the 140,000 year cycles and where we are in that cycle?

Do you mean those people whose entire academic career has been spent investigating all the causes and peer-reviewed research on these subjects?

Pretty sure "yes" is the answer to your question…

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Do you mean those people whose entire academic career has been spent investigating all the causes and peer-reviewed research on these subjects?

Pretty sure "yes" is the answer to your question…

Yes - they are the very same group thinkers jumping on the man-made doom wagon.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Yes - they are the very same group thinkers jumping on the man-made doom wagon.

Well, if you can't deny their science, might as well use an ad-hominem attack, eh?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Yes - they are the very same group thinkers jumping on the man-made doom wagon.

Happy News only allowed? Or should they tell it how it is? Evidence based scientists, or self interested politicians/ money men/GB news bigots, ? Your choice.

The thing you need to ask yourself is, what is the 'deniers' motivation? ( clue, it doesn't last longer than their own lifetime/ bank balances). Scientists tend to get paid the same whatever.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You do know what consensus means …..don’t you.

<yawn>

Again, "virtue signalling" .. you are obsessed with it. Think what you like, I clearly can't stop you. I gave you a clear definition of the overwhelming scientific consensus and it clearly winds you up. I really can't help that.

You are right (sort of a stopped clock moment), all the nations need to address net zero. Sort of obvious really. I know you won't because they won't - sort of a childish reaction to something that will affect your grandchildren. But hey, takes all sorts I guess.

Remember .. don't look up!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Happy News only allowed? Or should they tell it how it is? Evidence based scientists, or self interested politicians/ money men/GB news bigots, ? Your choice.

The thing you need to ask yourself is, what is the 'deniers' motivation? ( clue, it doesn't last longer than their own lifetime/ bank balances). Scientists tend to get paid the same whatever.

What is the matter with you and Hugh? We all know that the climate is changing.

But nobody here, apart from OB, is conceding the cyclical nature (140,000 years) of major climate change. We can't stop it.

[1andrew1]

Billionaire former Tory donor berates Sunak as he offers millions from own fortune to stop climate change

Guy Hands and his wife Julia plan to use a big chunk of their wealth for philanthropy, including combatting climate change, when steps back this month from investment giant Terra Firma

Billionaire former Conservative donor Guy Hands has slammed Rishi Sunak for “rowing back” on the Government’s commitment to fighting climate change.

Writing for i, Mr Hands reveals he and his wife Julia are going to divert hundreds of millions of their fortune to climate change projects in an effort to “reverse some of the damage we have done to our planet” and do “everything we can to reverse the damage for my children and their children to come”.

In a warning to Mr Sunak against caving in to pressure from climate sceptics in his own party to water down net-zero targets, Mr Hands writes: “While usually well-meaning, politicians are elected on the basis of how they improve people’s standard of living today rather than focusing on years into the future. Many see their job as choosing the most palatable solutions to climate change and calling it progress.

“However, it is very dangerous to be told that we are moving forward when we are not. We need instead to face up to how bad the situation is and how desperately we need to change.

“In short, the Prime Minister is not doing nearly enough. The UK should be taking a global lead on climate change, not rowing back. Ignorance is not bliss when the world is on fire.”

https://inews.co.uk/news/billionaire...article_inline

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

https://inews.co.uk/news/billionaire...article_inline

I’m sure you’re just about to qualify that post with a relevant point.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

https://inews.co.uk/news/billionaire...article_inline

What a stupid article: "The UK should be taking a global lead on climate change". What utter gollox. As in China and India (and the USA) would follow our magnificent lead! Not!

Btw, what does that fool mean by "taking a global lead"? Make us all buy heat pumps at unaffordable process? Make us all buy electric cars at unaffordable prices that we can't charge when we're on the road? Freeze our nainonicles off in winter so that others can continue polluting?

Doesn't that virtue signaller know that climate change cannot be stopped?