I distinctly recall 20-odd years ago a Greenpeace representative stating something like, “If we don’t exaggerate the situation, no one will take any notice of us.”
That’s sums up “climate change” for me … I suspect a great deal of sensationalism and hysteria is involved. But I don’t mind that much, because its effect is that many industrialised nations are taking the reduction of pollution seriously, which is a very good thing.
I don’t think so. I suspect someone nefarious wants a state of global fear and panic and “climate change” hysteria is how it is hoped to be achieved.
According to the UN, we’ve passed the global warming stage and have now entered the “global boiling” stage. LOL. I’m not buying it.
Most definitely not – it should be fearful and sensational. There certainly has not been enough to provoke adequate action, not with ocean temperatures off Florida exceeding 101 °F (33 °C)!
Do you two of a kind not think that’s sensational?!
I think there is a lot of politicization which distorts things somewhat.
It doesn’t change the principle facts.
But it does overlook some things.
I doubt all of those except that it’s complicated. But it doesn’t seem completely unlikely though that a volcanic winter could slow things down for a while, but it would be foolish to count on it.
Our planet experiences cycles of warming and cooling. What percentage of the 33*C you mention is due to natural warming and what percentage is due to man-made pollution?
Good point.
There’s plenty of info out there and it’s been around for a while so I don’t feel obligated to do your homework for you. Google it (you might get a fun surprise like I posted in the Humor thread.)
Hey, and good grief! There are graphs in this thread!
The graphs pretty much refute you, too, @mitchellmckain.
Memes are more than discouraged from being posted except in the Humor thread, but this is so apt maybe an exception can be granted (and it’s not a meme anyway ; - ) …
This is a meme, but it speaks to the parochialism and provincialism of climate change deniers, probably just because they haven’t been seriously affected by it yet:
Your part of we obviously doesn’t know, but you think that thousands if not tens of thousands of climate scientists actually working it don’t look at it from every angle imaginable?!
Dale made a mistake.
And some of them are ignored. That is the effect of politicization of an issue. Scientists are human beings and they can be bought. I am not claiming some vast conspiracy or an enormous distortion of the science, but consider how physics has been devoting so much to string theory in exclusion of so many other hypotheses (very much worth pursuing) which have been ignored by comparison. In this way science can wander a little. Science is not perfect and when politics and money get involved, it is even less perfect. Of course, I think the evidence doesn’t lie, and I am not suggesting any such thing.
String theory and climate science are not comparable at all. The latter has evidence associated with it, and lots. The former? Not so much. You really have not supported your prior misstatement even a little (of course you didn’t quote it either).
You can’t tell me what percentage of the 33*C you mentioned is due to natural warming and what percentage is due to man-made pollution … yet you claim the latter is destroying the planet.
Fascinating.
You can’t read a graph. Fascinating.
There are those who contribute to the discussion and there are those who subtract from the discussion. Here are some bad habits which do the latter rather than the former.
One is the habit of claiming evidence proves the truth of claims when it does no such thing. They like to crow and gloat so much they will look for any poor excuse. Another bad habit is an intolerance of any difference of opinion no matter how slight. A third is inventing victories over other people based on claims of errors without any explanation. Another is becoming very aggressive even abusive without much reason for doing so.
No information added in any of these. No explanation of any substance. Just someone getting off on imagined superiority.
Who is claiming the planet is being destroyed? I don’t know of any respectable scientists making that claim. The planet will be just fine within the age limits of our sun, barring some large scale impact or other unrelated-to-climate event. So that sounds like nothing more than a caricature from somebody who wants to discredit legitimate science.
Why would it matter if that percentage can’t be nailed down exactly? It’s just another excuse to ignore all the multitude of things that science has shown beyond reasonable doubt about climate change. Create a bar so high (“absolute proof” or precise delineation) and then complain when models of complicated things fall short of your impossible goal post. It’s like the cigarette executives complaining that nobody has really absolutely proven that smoking causes lung cancer. If one wants to be misinformed about the world, then listening to the merchants of doubt is the most reliable way to stay misinformed and help keep other people in the dark as well.
Well, if the percentage attributed to man-made pollution was calculated to be 0.0001%, for example, the temperature of the sea would be considered almost totally natural and therefore nothing to worry about. No one would be afraid that an irreversible climate catastrophy is imminent. No one would be making electric cars, no one would be hysterically screaming for the eradication of fossil fuels, no one would be dismantling coal-fired power stations, no one would be erecting thousands of gigantic ugly windmills all over the countryside and no one would be making the laughable claim that “the era of global boiling has arrived” … for starters.
I never denied that the planet is warming - after all, our planet has a history of cycles of warming and cooling.
My point is that if science can’t determine what percentage of any temperatute increase is natural and what percentage is due to man-made pollution, then the claim that the latter is leading to a climate catastrophe amounts to nothing more than speculation.
I think that this would do well to be tested against the conspiracy theory rationality test (patent pending).
Which of these two scenarios is more rational?
A hitherto unknown actor or actors has hoodwinked, or is perhaps in kahoots with, countless scientists, from multiple countries, in multiple institutions, from multiple disciplines, analysing multiple streams of data to sensationalise the findings of climate change research to perpetuate a state of global panic for hitherto unknown, but, no doubt, nefarious ends.
Countless scientists, in multiple countries, from multiple institutions, from multiple disciples analysing multiple streams of data have concluded that that climate change is not only real, but a threat to human flourishing.
I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusion.
Couple of climatologists were asked about the relationship between the climate change and the record high temperatures this year. The answer was that we cannot say what is the percentage explained by the climate change but we can say that we would not experience this kind of heating, on average worse from a year to the next ones, without the climate change.
This change has been told to happen years before it happened, just based on the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That is fairly convincing support for the generally accepted explanation that the rise in greenhouse gases is the main cause in the climate change.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
