@125ch209

Ok explain what can be done Its not about responsiblity it about realism. China and India / other rising powers will never reduce there emissions. Money talks and there is no money or economic development to be made by these country's for reducing carbon emissions.

China and India / other rising powers will never reduce there emissions

China is the first investor in green energy with 90Billion $ invested in 2014, far ahead of the US with 50B$. The rest of the developped world should lead the way toward sustainable energy. Of course if we are going to tackle the issue of climate change, there should be a global mobilisation toward that goal, we can hope that the COP21 in Paris in december will make some progress in that direction.

there is no money or economic development to be made by these country's for reducing carbon emissions.

Yet another ignorant statement, green energy can be a very good incentive for inovation and economic growth. The fact that China is heavily investing in renewable energy should give you some hints. I have nothing against you, but so far you have made so many wrong assertions based on your lack of understanding of the global economics and climate change, that it is hard not to be rude. The fact that you imply that we should do nothing about climate change is extremely irresponsible, and just because you don't understand the situation doesn't mean that there is nothing to be done. We should do something about climate change, and we should do it yesterday. If even 10% of the prediction of scientists turn out to be true, then doing nothing is going to cost us A LOT more than actually trying to do damage control.

At the risk of sounding like a complete asshole I'm going to make another post...

First of all I'll admit I was not aware of how much money China was investing in sustainable energy. That being said there are still thousands of coal plants In China with tens of new ones built every year.

Also regarding the COP21 while if (mmcc)exist I would like it to be fixed there have been scores of summits about renewable energy and fossils fuel and what normally gets done zilch.

---

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-04-world-energy-dirty-years-iea.html

While the article is two years old it still talks about how each unit of energy has not got any cleaner in the past decades.

---

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/satellite-data-shows-no-global-warming-for-nearly-19-years/

Global warming has stopped for 15-20 year's.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

There's quite a few that don't agree and any figures like the 96% one are very misleading.

---

The earth climate has always change thought it's existence I fail to see who any change now is not part of that cycle. Thought there hasn't even been any change in the last 20 years.



Feel free to completely destroy me it is good to be proven wrong one learns better from making an ass out of them self and them being corrected.

All scientist never agree on anything. However, when there is a scientific consensus, when 90%+ of scientists in the relevent field all over the world agree on something, it would be extremely stupid to deny what they are saying.

This is fascist attitude. Don't be so arrogant.

@Luna

http://www.upf.edu/pcstacademy/_docs/Pew-Science_Survey_2009.pdf

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/ (summary)

In this survey from 2009 (wich is a very interesting survey on a number of issues, you should really take a look at it), page 41, you'll see that 94% of US scientists agree that global warming is happening, 84% think it is due to human activity. And these are from a wide range of scientists, i would expect that among the scientist whom area of study is more relevent (climatology scientists), that number would be more like 99%. And this is from 2009 and in the US only. I would bet a lot that if you were to make a survey for scientist from all develloped countries in 2015, this number would be way up.

Here is the wikipedia page on the history of surveys made about this topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#cite_note-DZ_EOS_2009-16

The last one (Powell 2013) is very telling. Out of 13,950 published research on global warming and climate change in peer reviewed scientific journals, between 1991 and 2012, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming (caused by humans). And out of 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 only ONE of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.
If That's not a consensus, i don't know what is.

I haven't looked at your first link in detail but i would also expect that the energy consumption on a global level isn't much cleaner now than 20 years ago, mostly due to china/india booming.
This is no reason why we should stop the fight and give up, do nothing and continue to trash the planet in the hope that the scientist were all wrong or that jesus will come back to destroy the earth before we do it ourselves.


As for the "pause" in global warming, Lord Christopher Monckton is a well known disinformer and has been debunked many times. Here is an example: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/09/21/206763/lord-monckton-debunked-climate-scientists/

Here are the numbers from NASA (sry i couldn't get the gif to fit): 9 out of the 10 warmest years ever recorded (starting in 1880) have occured in the last 15 years.
The Nasa website is incredibly well done, you'll find a lot of information there:
http://climate.nasa.gov/



C02 in the earth atmosphere for the last 650,000 years



Edited 10/31/2015 03:45:03

@Luna:

I forgot to ask, but i'm interested in the "why" you think climate change is not caused by humans?
What reasons do you have for not accepting what the overwhelming majority of scientists have been telling us for the last 2 decades?

Why would you dismiss the warnings of people who's job is to study reality.

Do you think there is a global conspiracy among scientists to make the public believe that the earth is warming and that the climate is changing? What do you think are their motives for such an elaborate conspiracy?

What "evidence" exactly makes you think that you are right? On what are you basing your opinion? Can you give me the most compelling evidence you have that you are right?

And considering the terrible consequences we are facing why would you chose to do nothing just in case you are wrong?

I suppose that you must have very good reasons for contesting the evidences of 15000+ published studies for a "man made climate change", right?

Edited 10/31/2015 04:37:10

I forgot to ask, but i'm interested in the "why" you think climate change is not caused by humans?
What reasons do you have for not accepting what the overwhelming majority of scientists have been telling us for the last 2 decades?

Why would you dismiss the warnings of people who's job is to study reality.

Do you think there is a global conspiracy among scientists to make the public believe that the earth is warming and that the climate is changing? What do you think are their motives for such an elaborate conspiracy?

What "evidence" exactly makes you think that you are right? On what are you basing your opinion? Can you give me the most compelling evidence you have that you are right?

And considering the terrible consequences we are facing why would you chose to do nothing just in case you are wrong?

I suppose that you must have very good reasons for contesting the evidences of 15000+ published studies for a "man made climate change", right?

I was going to go on a tirade here for your facism and absolutely disgusting arguing but then I saw

Feel free to completely destroy me it is good to be proven wrong one learns better from making an ass out of them self and them being corrected.

Off the hook for now.

Edited 10/31/2015 05:09:16

Denying anthropogenic climate change is *exactly* as stupid and arrogant as being a creationist. If you can understand why creationism is stupid shit, you should be able to notice that climate denialism is just as stupid and shitty. And Nigel Lawson is a retarded dickwad. And he's wrong, too.

When will people start taking responsibility for the fucking stupid shit they believe and clean up their brains? Hey climate denialists, your brains are full of stupid shit! Clean them out already!

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
  
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Lawson#Position_on_global_warming
  
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nigel_Lawson
  

Edited 10/31/2015 06:00:00

And thank you 125ch209 for being a voice of reason.

Global warming is a lie.

The cake is a lie.

Why would you dismiss the warnings of people who's job is to study reality.

Top Fucking Kek I think you could be on to somethink here...

Your know I think I better look in to some more stuff I think I may have been suffering from comformation bias.

As someone who believes that Global Warming is a problem and needs to be countered I've got to say; this in your face "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" attitude isn't going to help anything. Do you honestly think that anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is going to be swayed by someone screaming in their face about how "stupid and shitty" their views are? Grow up and approach the topic with some civility, or else you'll never persuade anyone.

(I chose not to name anyone in specific, but you know who you are)

Why people do not seem to be concerned at all about Climate Changes ?

Just because they don`t seem to be it, doesn`t mean they aren`t. Besides that, I see more and more 'green' stuff on the market. It is making its way slowly and steadily. Thats how it seems to me.

Year 2015 is very very alarming and everyone should be worried.

Why is 2015 more alarming than other years are?

if you are really worried about climate change then convince you congressmen to side with nuclear energy. it's the only energy that is reliable and can feed all us energy hunger americans

You should mention that it is the only reliable "green" energie source right now. Solar panels and windturbines are becoming better and better everyday. Combine that with bio-energy and they`ll be able to feed all you hungry americans ;). It will take a bit of time before it can though, as they don`t work well enough yet. Now the question is, would you rather continue like we do now for lets say 20 years and then switch to bio-energie. Or would you rather switch to nuclearenergy now and switch to bio-energie later? Cause a lot of people aren`t in favour of nuclearenergy either.

when 90%+ of scientists in the relevent field all over the world agree on something, it would be extremely stupid to deny what they are saying.

I wouldn`t say stupid.... You can deny everything if you can come up with good facts and statistics. On this argument I have to say that if you read the facts of both sides neither of them comes out dominant. There seems to be so much going on, so much debate. To me it doesn`t seem like we accually know whats causing global warming, but we are just assuming the worst scenario (which isn`t a bad thing)

i won't bother reading the book of a politician on a subject like climate change

Yeah I understand, shame that a lot of people don`t seem to care wether or not the person is a scientist. Al Gore is the biggest example on the other side of the argument.

While America is a big contributor, we should also look at other countries, such as China.

Problem with america is that they don`t seem as willing to change as other big contributors

Money talks and there is no money or economic development to be made by these country's

125ch209`s answer to this is pretty good. I feel like I should mention that more people want to have 'green'stuff. As the market for environmentfriendly stuff grows, so does the money that goes into it.

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-04-world-energy-dirty-years-iea.html

While the article is two years old it still talks about how each unit of energy has not got any cleaner in the past decades.

I will admit right now that I`m not an expect and that my answer to this will just be out of the top of my head. China, India and Africa are all upcoming economies. That means that they will start to use more and more oil and pump more and more carbon into the air. Whilst in Europe and America the renewable energy might be improving its impact won`t be visible because there is a much bigger group that is undoing its effects.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/satellite-data-shows-no-global-warming-for-nearly-19-years/

Global warming has stopped for 15-20 year's.

The article speaks of purposly changed statistics. I have read of this before, accually way to much. I doubt it doesn`t happen. That doesn`t mean that the world isn`t warming up though, just at a slower rate than we thought (which makes man-made global warming less likely).

As for the "pause" in global warming, Lord Christopher Monckton is a well known disinformer and has been debunked many times. Here is an example: [uTwpcPWN9cEmk9FU=http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/09/21/206763/lord-monckton-debunked-climate-scientists/

]http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/09/21/206763/lord-monckton-debunked-climate-scientists/[/quote][/uTwpcPWN9cEmk9FU]
I think this article makes the problems between both sides clear. I agree with most they say. As for the summary of “the authoritative scientific statements in each of these nine areas” I don`t know about statement number 1.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

There's quite a few that don't agree and any figures like the 96% one are very misleading.

This link shows a graph that tells me that about 90% of all scientists do agree with it.

The earth climate has always change thought it's existence I fail to see who any change now is not part of that cycle.

The speed at which it is happening is what makes scientists think it is not part of that, normally incredibly slow, cycle

The last one (Powell 2013) is very telling. Out of 13,950 published research on global warming and climate change in peer reviewed scientific journals, between 1991 and 2012, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming (caused by humans).

On the other hand there have been scientist at the IPCC who haven`t agreed with multiple articles, yet their names where on it as well. Just because a name is on it doesn`t mean the scientist automaticly agree with it. Although this is pretty overwhelming, the numbers are probably not exactly like this. (not that there will be any major changes)

@125ch209: You do realise that the NASAclimatechange graph is exaggerated right?

This one is a bit closer to the truth.

As someone who believes that Global Warming is a problem and needs to be countered I've got to say; this in your face "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" attitude isn't going to help anything. Do you honestly think that anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is going to be swayed by someone screaming in their face about how "stupid and shitty" their views are? Grow up and approach the topic with some civility, or else you'll never persuade anyone.

(I chose not to name anyone in specific, but you know who you are)

Was going to say something alike, but

Feel free to completely destroy me it is good to be proven wrong one learns better from making an ass out of them self and them being corrected.

I Think sources of Wind and Solar are great, and we should have some, but the thing is what happens when it's not windy today or it's super cloudy, which is why i suggested nuclear energy. also while people are looking towards "green" energy a lot of people can't afford it.

I forgot to ask, but i'm interested in the "why" you think climate change is not caused by humans?

Although I`m personally not certain which side is true (I am sure neither side has it 100% right at this moment) my biggest problem is that a lot of studies show a correlation between the activity of the sun and changes in CO2 levels. And according to most of those studies the current rise of CO2 levels is just following the rise of sun activity a couple of hundred years ago

This graph comes from one of those studies:

Why would you dismiss the warnings of people who's job is to study reality.

Sometimes it is like that, sometimes (for example the IPCC) their job is to proof something. If you have to proof A, you are going to search for evidence for it and your interpretations of results might be biased.

And considering the terrible consequences we are facing why would you chose to do nothing just in case you are wrong?

This is why it is better to go 'green'. Whether it is true or not doesn`t matter. If it isn`t true then our change doesn`t really matter as much. If it is true then we did good. It seems like a scenario where the change can`t really cause losses for humankind.
On the other hand, what are the terrible consequences you are speaking of? Animals that stop to excist? Sea level rising? Cause all of that has happened before as well. Earth will adapt to it. In the history of our planet this really doesn`t mean that much. For us as humans it is bad, but it doesn`t mean the end of the world.

Denying anthropogenic climate change is *exactly* as stupid and arrogant

Once again I don`t see how denying something is stupid. Arrogant? I also fail to see that one. It seems more arrogant to think that we are able to change the climate and it isn`t cause by that massive star that has influenced life for as long as it exists.

Global warming is a lie

Global warming isn`t. Its just a question if it is another nature event or if it is man made.

The cake is a lie

The cake is always a lie

I've got to say; this in your face "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" attitude isn't going to help anything.

In fact that attitude makes you look stupid. I never liked people who can`t understand that not everybody believes everything. Whether or not they are right is a different story, but they aren`t idiots. You always need to be open for the other side or you`ll start to be biased. You`ll always need to question the arguments made by your side as well. Mostly the people who say "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" are not doing that. Therefore they are just as biased as the people that disagree. People need to learn to think for themselves. Ofcourse if you have thought about the arguments of both sides and have questions the statement and you still believe in your side, then good for you! At least you know what you are talking about and you are open to critics about it.

That said, 123ch209, props to you for the way you are arguing. You seem to have read your fair share of publications and you have asked Luna what exaclty his/her problems where.

As someone who believes that Global Warming is a problem and needs to be countered I've got to say; this in your face "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" attitude isn't going to help anything. Do you honestly think that anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is going to be swayed by someone screaming in their face about how "stupid and shitty" their views are? Grow up and approach the topic with some civility, or else you'll never persuade anyone.

(I chose not to name anyone in specific, but you know who you are)

Yes, I know who I am, and yes, it does work. Not necessarily directly on the person being addressed, *but* -- when you can back up your claims about stupid shitty beliefs with evidence, as I did with the links provided -- then it just so happens that some people on the sidelines tend to see that the frustration with stupid and shitty beliefs is justified.

And I don't say "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot", I talk about the beliefs and actions of people, not the people themselves. (Unless it's a fuckwit like Nigel Lawson, who's not even a member of this forum, so I have no reason to be kind to him.)

There are many ways to influence public perceptions. Sometimes calling a spade a spade is a very effective way of pointing out that the Emperor is naked. To mix a couple of metaphors.

Sometimes what you call 'civility' can give unwarranted credence to stupid and shitty beliefs. It's a rather situation-dependent and person-dependent question as to which conversational strategies will be effective.

Question for you: Are you a creationist? If not, do you see how believing in creationism is stupid and shitty? (If you are, then I can at least understand why you might also be a climate denialist. But then there's a whole slew of other questions that follow...) [Edit: Apologies, I may have misread your statement about global warming. At first I thought it was ambiguous, now I'm not sure. So, to clarify I'll ask, do you go by the scientific consensus that GW is anthropogenic?]

Edited 10/31/2015 20:29:26

On this argument I have to say that if you read the facts of both sides neither of them comes out dominant. There seems to be so much going on, so much debate. To me it doesn`t seem like we accually know whats causing global warming, but we are just assuming the worst scenario (which isn`t a bad thing)

There are no 'sides' to facts. Facts are facts. What you have is not two sides with different facts, what you have is two sides with differing views on how to evaluate *evidence* of facts. One side is the side whose job it is to understand how to evaluate evidence reliably and effectively (scientists), and the other side is the side who *don't* understand how to evaluate evidence reliably and effectively (climate denialists, cf. creationists aka evolution denialists).

'Debate', on its own, is not a sign of scientific controversy. The debate on climate in the public sphere is *political* and ideological, not scientific.

And the warming is caused by CO2 (and the relatively enormous increase in CO2 is caused by human activity). Read some of the links that have been provided earlier. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly clear. It requires stupid and shitty prior beliefs to actively deny it.

@Min34

On this argument I have to say that if you read the facts of both sides neither of them comes out dominant. There seems to be so much going on, so much debate.

This is simply not true, when 99%+ scientists studying climate agree that climate change is real and anthropogenic, there is no debate. Not among scientists anyway. It usually is a pretty good indication that the facts are massively supporting climate change. The only "debate" going on is among politicians, because a lot of money is at stake, and some people don't want to piss off the big oil corporations who are pouring out millions of dollars to support climate change deniers.

You do realise that the NASAclimatechange graph is exaggerated right?

Ahaha really? What do you mean exactly? You think NASA is lying about the data? Keep in mind, the NASA graph shows the RECORDED data for temperatures since we began recording it (1880), and the source for the datas is certainly not all owned by NASA (since NASA was created in 1958). And you think NASA is lying about it? Why? You think all the scientists at NASA are in on a big conspiracy? And have kept it secret all this time? Come on...

And then you pull out a graph out of nowhere showing the temperature for the last 400,000 years, wich is completely beside the point (i.e the claim that the temperatures have been steady for the last 20 years) and can't remotely be compared with NASA's graph, since they show datas from complete different time frames. And on top of that, you just post the graph without even giving your source. So i'm supposed to take your word for it?

And according to most of those studies the current rise of CO2 levels is just following the rise of sun activity a couple of hundred years ago

This is not true at all. Every study shows that the concentration of C02 level is off the chart, (probably the highest in the last 800,000 years). Look at the graph from NASA. From the beginning of the industrial revolution to today, it went from 280ppm to 400+ppm, and increasing every year (we can measure that).

Your graph, from "one of those study", isn't even related to the discussion here. You did not give your source so i can't be sure, but it is pretty clear that those datas are about the variation of Co2 and temperature for the past 20,000 years, not including the recent 200 years (or even 2000 years, since the datas stop at 0), wich is the very time frame we are interested in (when we started releasing massive amount of C02 into the atmosphere, aka since the industrial revolution).
If you want to post graphs, the least you could do is give the source of your graph, because all of this is clearly very misleading.


source: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/print_ghg-concentrations-2015.pdf

On the other hand, what are the terrible consequences you are speaking of? Animals that stop to excist? Sea level rising? Cause all of that has happened before as well. Earth will adapt to it. In the history of our planet this really doesn`t mean that much. For us as humans it is bad, but it doesn`t mean the end of the world.

Well of course the earth will live on, no one said climate change is going to blow up the earth into oblivion. It is us Humans and the rest of the current life on this planet who are in trouble.

edit: tipo

edit: regarding the influence of the sun on global warming, i was doubtful of what you were saying so i dig a little. Turns out this article explains exactly what i was suspecting you were doing (cherry picking the data to not include the recent years), wich i found funny:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Edited 10/31/2015 21:38:17