+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change (/Thread-Research-sho-there-is-no-scientific-debate-about-climate-change)
Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - Beaker - 04-16-2016
An overwhelming 97.1 percent of scientists think humans are heavily contributing to climate change:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/15/research-shows-yet-again-that-theres-no-scientific-debate-about-climate-change/
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - fredtoast - 04-16-2016
At this point I think every legitimate source agrees that man is having an effect. Now they are just arguing about how big of an effect.
From what research i trust it seems to be big enough that we should do something to address it.
What shocks me is the people who claim that "climate change" is just a scam to make money when in fact most measures to address it would actually be bad for the economy in the short term and hurt elected officials in power at the time.
When they tell me to "follow the money" I find that almost all climate change deniers are funded by the fossil fuel industry.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - Nately120 - 04-16-2016
Sorry, I'm siding with Sarah Palin on this one and Jenny McCarthy on the vaccination thing...science be damned.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - bfine32 - 04-16-2016
According to Al Gore shouldn't we all be dead by now?
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - fredtoast - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: According to Al Gore shouldn't we all be dead by now?
Another vague question with no valid point.
Why am I not surprised?
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - Nately120 - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: According to Al Gore shouldn't we all be dead by now?
I recall Al Gore saying we'd all be dead by 2004. Also, I just seen Bigfoot!
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - PhilHos - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 02:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Another vague question with no valid point.
Why am I not surprised?
Fred, you're not stupid so stop pretending to be. You know exactly what bfines point is. Either address it or don't, but please stop making yourself look less than intelligent by pretending that bfine is not making a salient point.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - Beaker - 04-16-2016
Man simply can't NOT be affecting things with the amount of fossil fuels we burn each year. And for those who say its part of a "normal" warming or cooling cycle, well....you're wrong. CO2 levels in our atmosphere have never reached the levels they are approaching now. Here's a very simple graphic to indicate what we mean:
![[Image: CO2_graph.jpg]](http://climatekids.nasa.gov/review/climate-change-evidence/CO2_graph.jpg)
You see the up and downs of the red line below the dotted blue line? Those are the normal cycles of the Earth. We are now in territory the earth has never been in before. And another simplistic point that helps illustrate the point....no other planet in the solar system is warming at the rate the earth is right now. If it had something to do with a normal cycle, the other planets would be following the same cycle according to their average temperatures...but they aren't.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - Benton - 04-16-2016
Given there are several billion of us, body heat alone is contributing. But outside of massive population reduction, you don't have a lot of alternative.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - Beaker - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 03:08 PM)Benton Wrote: Given there are several billion of us, body heat alone is contributing. But outside of massive population reduction, you don't have a lot of alternative.
Untrue. Fossil fuels are the main contributor. The alternative is developing other energy sources. The problem is it is human nature not to change something we are comfortable with. It takes becoming uncomfortable to force people to make a change. The problem with that in this instance is, that by the time we become uncomfortable enough to realize we need to change, it may be past the point of no return already. The earth is giving us clear signals that a change needs to be made...and we are for the most part pretending those signals do not exist.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - fredtoast - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 03:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Fred, you're not stupid so stop pretending to be. You know exactly what bfines point is. Either address it or don't, but please stop making yourself look less than intelligent by pretending that bfine is not making a salient point.
Well apparently Bfines argument is that if someone was wrong in the past that means all science is unreliable. But, as I already said, this is not a valid point.
I am sure Bfine does not let the fact that Doctors used to bleed people to cure them keep him from going to a doctor today when he gets sick.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - bfine32 - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 02:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Another vague question with no valid point.
Why am I not surprised?
Another non-answer.
Why am I not surprised?
Of course there is a chance that man is effecting his environment; just showing that sometimes it is over-stated to push a political agenda. Like when Sanders said it caused terrorism.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - Benton - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 03:12 PM)Beaker Wrote: Untrue. Fossil fuels are the main contributor. The alternative is developing other energy sources. The problem is it is human nature not to change something we are comfortable with. It takes becoming uncomfortable to force people to make a change. The problem with that in this instance is, that by the time we become uncomfortable enough to realize we need to change, it may be past the point of no return already. The earth is giving us clear signals that a change needs to be made...and we are for the most part pretending those signals do not exist.
You're never going to get rid of fossil fuels with their current lobby. Your option is to vote extreme liberal or have massive election reform at the federal level, which would allow either some form of ballot initiative or in the very least (with term limits) get a less bribery oriented system.
Since the second one ain't happening, I'd suggest you get used to voting for Bernie.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - Benton - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Another non-answer.
Why am I not surprised?
Of course there is a chance that man is effecting his environment; just showing that sometimes it is over-stated to push a political agenda. Like when Sanders said it caused terrorism.
Well that's not too far off. If you have an agrarian society that's already dry and hot for long periods, then you make it drier and hotter, then your ability to grow depends entirely on local infrastructure. When that's bombed to shit on a weekly basis, or controlled by a different faction every month, you're pretty much sol. People get desperate when they can't feed their family.
Global warming doesn't cause terrorism, but it adds to people suffering. And the more discord and anguish you've got, the easier it is for recruiters .
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - fredtoast - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: just showing that sometimes it is over-stated to push a political agenda.
Why would a politician want to push a political agenda that would hurt him if measures were taken to address this agenda?
Policies to prevent climate change by limiting CO2 output will cause problems with our economy and hurt any politician that puts them in place.
How was Gore going to gain by over-stating the threat of climate change?
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - bfine32 - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 05:09 PM)Benton Wrote: Well that's not too far off. If you have an agrarian society that's already dry and hot for long periods, then you make it drier and hotter, then your ability to grow depends entirely on local infrastructure. When that's bombed to shit on a weekly basis, or controlled by a different faction every month, you're pretty much sol. People get desperate when they can't feed their family.
Global warming doesn't cause terrorism, but it adds to people suffering. And the more discord and anguish you've got, the easier it is for recruiters .
List of folks who have suffered because of Global warming:
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - Beaker - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course there is a chance that man is effecting his environment; just showing that sometimes it is over-stated to push a political agenda. Like when Sanders said it caused terrorism.
That might be the major problem...listening to politicians instead of looking at the actual science.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - JustWinBaby - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 01:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: An overwhelming 97.1 percent of scientists think humans are heavily contributing to climate change:
"The study examined thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers and found that, among those papers that took a position on the causes of climate change, 97.1 percent of them supported the idea that global warming is caused by humans"
You can go to John Cook's original paper and read how the model was actually constructed and then decide if you think his method "proves" 97% of scientists agree. But the long and short, he did a keyword search for studies on climate change mentioning man-made warming, and then asked if they believed it - not proved with statistical rigor, but BELIEVED - and 97% of those people agreed. This is peer-reviewed, published studies....decide for yourself if there would be bias in excluding papers that found no result or took a position against man-made warming.
A 95% confidence interval is what every single student is taught is the hurdle in introductory statistics. Other fields in biology and physics, with "simpler" models and controlled experiments in a lab, find 95% isn't actually high enough to be reliable (i.e. money put behind theories for investment).
Now what's comical about the magical 95% confidence interval is the IPCC declared they were 95% confident man was causing global warming. Not how much impact, mind you, but an impact. Impressive! Except it was just a declaration and was not based on actual statistical findings.
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - bfine32 - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 05:26 PM)Beaker Wrote: That might be the major problem...listening to politicians instead of looking at the actual science.
So when are the icecaps going to melt?
RE: Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change - bfine32 - 04-16-2016
(04-16-2016, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why would a politician want to push a political agenda that would hurt him if measures were taken to address this agenda?
Policies to prevent climate change by limiting CO2 output will cause problems with our economy and hurt any politician that puts them in place.
How was Gore going to gain by over-stating the threat of climate change?
If you can convince the gullible that your opponent is going to "kill the world' and cause worldwide terrorism you might pick up a vote or 2.