Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[SPSREEFS]

Professor Ridd has also called out phony/fake pictures of corals dying on the barrier reef! He was also censored by James Cook University and I believe fired for it. This is far from over for James Cook University. This is the kind of garbage that goes on in the world.
I come to my own conclusions and urge others to do the same.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes I will take Professor Peter Ridd's analysis over a government report/data any day of the week. Very much so when I know the people they have hired to get produce this information are global warming theorists.......

The device that measures sea level at those measuring stations is a global warming theorist? lol

Seriously, it is a mechanical float. lol

 

[Pmj]

..Governmental opposition funding needs to be on par with the rest of the funding.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that's not the way research funding works, nor should it.

 

[SPSREEFS]

I dont blame you for thinking that way Randy. LOL. There are many chemists out there. You are not a oceanic physicist. I never stated that the oceans where not "currently" rising Randy. I did state our electricity rates would rise along with food and everything else if we entered into the Paris Accord. You are mistaken there! I did also state if they are rising we would get more coral growth.
I know this debate could rage on forever. I would just encourage people to think for themselves.
As I stated before I am not on board with Man made Global Warming. 50 years ago everyone was worried about Global Cooling. I remember my grandpa laughing about that one too............

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I dont blame you for thinking that way Randy. LOL. There are many chemists out there. You are not a oceanic physicist. .

I think I made it very clear in earlier posts that I am in no way able to scientifically and independently criticize any of the claims of any of the the 100% of well trained climate scientists. Nor do I think anyone in this thread can.

Because of that, I am inclined to agree with the 97% of climate scientists who do think that man is contributing to global warming, and the professional societies that represent them who agree, and to disagree with the remaining outliers.

Frankly, given that many people believe in many crazy things (some of which I know to not be true, and some of which I think are very, very unlikely (alien abductions, etc.)), I'm surprised the number would be as high as 97% for something like this. I'm quite impressed by it. :)

 

[Waterjockey]

It's really hard for the conversation not to get into politics you are right. Unfortunately, for every reasonable person that wants to continue to look at data (and critique it, like you've done which is fine - peer review obviously), there are ten more that just want to cut funding for it, cut scientists out of the relative agencies based on their position on the issue (sound familiar?), or inject anecdotes and non-science into the debate (as you have seen in this thread).

I agree. I honestly believe the biggest PR (Public Relations) issue of the anthropogenic climate change debate is the media, and Politians. Most Climatologists are *not* saying what the media tends to exaggerate and sensationalize. Then the general masses believe the sensational, exaggerated news, is the position of the majority of the scientific community engaged in the various related branches. Then they go on the internets and yell at each other :) Anecdotally, it seems to me (opinion), based on a cursory search of today's internet news highlights, that there isn't a single thing that happens in this world for which anthropogenic climate change can't be blamed for.
What I fear is, in my *opinion* is a disproportionate amount of funding and talent is diverted from, serious and real global threats (pollution for example) that we have the ability to make real impacts on (take the wildly successful Montreal accord and CFC's/Ozone depletion, for example) being wasted on what has become, in my *opinion* a politically driven ideology.
The Great Barrier Reefs, for example, the concern for which started this thread. It only takes a few minutes to superficially read through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park's "Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report" summary. This is an independent, peer reviewed report developed every few years. Under "Biodiversity" I read the following lines "Coral reefs are the cornerstone of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem and its evolutionary history. Since monitoring began in 1986, though there have been some periods of recovery, the overall average hard coral cover in the Region is estimated to have declined from 28 to 13.8 per cent and the rate of decline has increased substantially in recent years. The decline in coral cover has been most severe in the southern two-thirds of the Region. It is largely the result of a combination of cyclones, crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks and mass bleaching, with elevated nutrients, sediments and pesticides in land-based run-off likely to have affected recovery in inshore areas. While coral reefs have a natural ability to recover from periodic disturbances, corals exposed to chronic pressures such as poor water quality, are likely to have less resilience. There are early signs of regeneration of some reefs affected by severe weather, for example areas in the path of cyclone Yasi in 2011".
A quick look at google would give you the impression it is largely a result of anthropogenic global warming and ocean acidification which has irreversibly killed the reefs (they haven't been killed, and are recovering nicely in some areas, and poorly if at all in others).. How, exactly, do you tease out a few hundredths of a percent of CO2 in the atmosphere's impact on the reefs, in the face of "chronic pressures" from elevated nutrients, chemicals, overfishing, animal plagues, shipping, cyclones, etc. Simply answer is (my opinion) there is no reasonable way to quantify the effect, if any, of "man made climate change", on a system beleaguered by fairly obvious man made and natural negative stressors. If it was a global effect (acidification, thermal etc), it would seem to me that the reef as a whole, would be suffering the same fate relatively equally. The fact that some areas are continuing to decline, while others are rebounding very well, lends my mind to other factors than a global change of the external environment but rather a local change of the internal environment..(such as water pollution and the paths it circulates through the reef for one example). Good news is, we *can* do things about the nutrients/pollutants dumped into the reef waters, the illegal fishing, the direct and indirect damage from shipping, and so on, and where these measures are taking place, there are encouraging signs of recovery.

 

[SPSREEFS]

I think I made it very clear in earlier posts that I am in no way able to scientifically and independently criticize any of the claims of any of the the 100% of well trained climate scientists. Nor do I think anyone in this thread can.

Because of that, I am inclined to agree with the 97% of climate scientists who do think that man is contributing to global warming, and the professional societies that represent them who agree, and to disagree with the remaining outliers.

Frankly, given that many people believe in many crazy things (some of which I know to not be true, and some of which I think are very, very unlikely (alien abductions, etc.)), I'm surprised the number would be as high as 97% for something like this. I'm quite impressed by it. :)

Im Disappointed you would just side with the majority and not be able to see through the rubbish...but everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion.....
Not sure where the alien thing came from. However, I cannot say I believe in that either.


Sent from my XT1575 using REEF2REEF mobile app

 

[Waterjockey]

I think I made it very clear in earlier posts that I am in no way able to scientifically and independently criticize any of the claims of any of the the 100% of well trained climate scientists. Nor do I think anyone in this thread can.

Because of that, I am inclined to agree with the 97% of climate scientists who do think that man is contributing to global warming, and the professional societies that represent them who agree, and to disagree with the remaining outliers.

Frankly, given that many people believe in many crazy things (some of which I know to not be true, and some of which I think are very, very unlikely (alien abductions, etc.)), I'm surprised the number would be as high as 97% for something like this. I'm quite impressed by it. :)

Cook's claim of "97% consensus" has been discredited. Just a quick peek at Wikipedia lists close to a hundred scientists in the related fields (Climatologists, Palo-climatologists, geologists, earth sciences, various disciplines of physics etc) on the record and publishing peer reviewed papers that disagree with the IPCC conclusions. Many of those on the list have Doctorates and outstanding awards in the field of Climatology. These are just the ones that made it on the Wikipedia hit list. There are many, many, more that participate in the very much alive and kicking debates in closed forums. Contrary to the mass media claims that there is this impossibly high "consensus", and that the "science is settled", the debate(s) being carried out by those that have distinguished themselves in the field is very much alive and kicking.
Someone on this forum once told me that science and truth are not carried out by vote, anyhow :)

 

[lightningreef2690]

Ive learned that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
Essentially what its like discussing mans impact on the ecosystems and global warming.

 

[Lasse]

The earth is warming and its caused by mankind - see here

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Cook's claim of "97% consensus" has been discredited. Just a quick peek at Wikipedia lists close to a hundred scientists in the related fields (Climatologists, Palo-climatologists, geologists, earth sciences, various disciplines of physics etc) on the record and publishing peer reviewed papers that disagree with the IPCC conclusions. Many of those on the list have Doctorates and outstanding awards in the field of Climatology. These are just the ones that made it on the Wikipedia hit list. There are many, many, more that participate in the very much alive and kicking debates in closed forums. Contrary to the mass media claims that there is this impossibly high "consensus", and that the "science is settled", the debate(s) being carried out by those that have distinguished themselves in the field is very much alive and kicking.
Someone on this forum once told me that science and truth are not carried out by vote, anyhow :)

Right. Been discredited by climate deniers. lol

I'll stick with NASA and their conclusion that

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

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Many scientific societies (some of whom I am am member) agree with:

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"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." (2009)2

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
• 
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
• 
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
• 
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

 

[Pmj]

I agree. I honestly believe the biggest PR (Public Relations) issue of the anthropogenic climate change debate is the media, and Politians. Most Climatologists are *not* saying what the media tends to exaggerate and sensationalize. Then the general masses believe the sensational, exaggerated news, is the position of the majority of the scientific community engaged in the various related branches. Then they go on the internets and yell at each other :) Anecdotally, it seems to me (opinion), based on a cursory search of today's internet news highlights, that there isn't a single thing that happens in this world for which anthropogenic climate change can't be blamed for.
What I fear is, in my *opinion* is a disproportionate amount of funding and talent is diverted from, serious and real global threats (pollution for example) that we have the ability to make real impacts on (take the wildly successful Montreal accord and CFC's/Ozone depletion, for example) being wasted on what has become, in my *opinion* a politically driven ideology.
The Great Barrier Reefs, for example, the concern for which started this thread. It only takes a few minutes to superficially read through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park's "Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report" summary. This is an independent, peer reviewed report developed every few years. Under "Biodiversity" I read the following lines "Coral reefs are the cornerstone of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem and its evolutionary history. Since monitoring began in 1986, though there have been some periods of recovery, the overall average hard coral cover in the Region is estimated to have declined from 28 to 13.8 per cent and the rate of decline has increased substantially in recent years. The decline in coral cover has been most severe in the southern two-thirds of the Region. It is largely the result of a combination of cyclones, crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks and mass bleaching, with elevated nutrients, sediments and pesticides in land-based run-off likely to have affected recovery in inshore areas. While coral reefs have a natural ability to recover from periodic disturbances, corals exposed to chronic pressures such as poor water quality, are likely to have less resilience. There are early signs of regeneration of some reefs affected by severe weather, for example areas in the path of cyclone Yasi in 2011".
A quick look at google would give you the impression it is largely a result of anthropogenic global warming and ocean acidification which has irreversibly killed the reefs (they haven't been killed, and are recovering nicely in some areas, and poorly if at all in others).. How, exactly, do you tease out a few hundredths of a percent of CO2 in the atmosphere's impact on the reefs, in the face of "chronic pressures" from elevated nutrients, chemicals, overfishing, animal plagues, shipping, cyclones, etc. Simply answer is (my opinion) there is no reasonable way to quantify the effect, if any, of "man made climate change", on a system beleaguered by fairly obvious man made and natural negative stressors. If it was a global effect (acidification, thermal etc), it would seem to me that the reef as a whole, would be suffering the same fate relatively equally. The fact that some areas are continuing to decline, while others are rebounding very well, lends my mind to other factors than a global change of the external environment but rather a local change of the internal environment..(such as water pollution and the paths it circulates through the reef for one example). Good news is, we *can* do things about the nutrients/pollutants dumped into the reef waters, the illegal fishing, the direct and indirect damage from shipping, and so on, and where these measures are taking place, there are encouraging signs of recovery.

@Waterjockey I agree with you in general on your other points. And I struggle to say this in a non-political way, but if you care about those things, the side that doesn't believe in AGW doesn't believe in fixing those things either.

 

[SPSREEFS]

I dont think anyone on here is discrediting the fact that the weather is changing. Its whether its man made or not is the question. And they have no evidence that it is man made. They have more evidence that its not man made. I would say its from the sun.
Europe is done.

The earth is warming and its caused by mankind - see here

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

Sincerely Lasse

"Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature" LOL..............RUBBISH!

 

[Lasse]

The Dinosaurs and CO2

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...pike-to-a-level-not-seen-since-the-dinosaurs/

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

"Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature" LOL..............RUBBISH

Do you not respect findings from your own Universities ?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I dont think anyone on here is discrediting the fact that the weather is changing. Its whether its man made or not is the question. And they have no evidence that it is man made. They have more evidence that its not man made. I would say its from the sun.
!

I've heard you point that out in other posts. Be sure to point it out to the climate scientists. I doubt it occurred to them. lol

 

[Best Fish-Jake]

Do you not respect findings from your own Universities ?

Sincerely Lasse

Not when they're false...

 

[Lasse]

Are they false? Are you sure?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[seaplane]

From November to April, I'm all for it!! LOL.