11-11-2017, 12:06 PM
(11-09-2017, 09:13 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: CO2 from man in the atmosphere has had a tiny amount of increase in global temperatures....but the theory that it is a catalyst for catastrophic global warming is dubious at best, and arguably been debunked by a nearly 20 year "pause" (which is generous spin on not really understanding what is happening, but for some reason people continue to accept their predictions as "settled science").
Increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes has NOT been shown as being attributable to global warming (a rare admission). The IPCC and many top scientists have said this, but it doesn't stop the fake news media from claiming it. Increased drought is also dubious. Antartica ice shelf is also in contention, with a recent paper on some of the instability/melting on the western shelf possibly attributable to underlying volcanic activity. If anything in the OP refllects an actual consensus of scientists, it would be the OPPOSITE of the claims made.
You guys should really trying reading some of the research from skeptics (a.k.a "deniers") highlighted in places like WattsUpWithThat (which the mainstream media completely ignores), and also from Roy Spencer, whom has been attacked and vilified but is a leading researcher - an authority - on ATTRIBUTION of global warming causes. He also is or was the lead maintainer of the global satellite temperature record (which is interesting in itself, because it doesn't exactly confirm the ground temperature "records" which are constantly being adjusted, usually lower).
Steve Koonin, former Energy Dept. Undersecretary of Science in the Obama Administration, also has some interesting views. Here's his take on the recent report cited in the OP:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate-1509660882
No one really denies man has likely had a small impact on warming (one that could actually be beneficial). But more than a few out there disagree with the global warming alarmism as based-off bad science driven by agendas.
First, there is no such thing as "settled science". The nature of science itself requires constant re-examining and re-questioning of current knowledge. When deniers claim there is no consensus, that's true throughout all branches of science. There are very few cases in science where there is a consensus on anything. But when 97% of scientists agree that the evidence for man affecting global climate is strong, then that's about as close to settled as you can get in science. Even "settled" scientific areas like gravity are consistently re-examined. The actual detection of gravitational waves a couple of years ago is re-writing our knowledge of a scientific fact that has been "settled" for hundreds of years.
Secondly, there will always be (and should be) scientists like Mr. Koonin presenting alternative possibilities to be examined. But that doesn't mean the current evidence is false or wrong. For example, the possibility of a mantle plume under Antarctica only accounts for some of the ice melt on that continent. There are, and have been volcanoes on Antarctica. But those only account for ice melt over part of that continent. What it doesn't account for is any of the ice melt (or the longer summers) in the arctic. Nor does it account for the rapidly retreating glaciers across the rest of the planet.
The correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature is well established. Common sense and logic tell us that with the amount of fossil fuels that are being consumed globally by humans have to be adding C)2 to our atmosphere in levels that have never previously been seen on such a consistent basis. Climate change may not be solely attributable to human actions....but we certainly have to be playing a part in exacerbating any climate change that may be occurring naturally.
