Our country needs to have a real conversation about climate change, the science, the myth, the possible solutions, and the impact on every aspect of our lives...
We have been told the science is settled by Al Gore. Is it?
We have been told we humans are the cause? Are we really?
We have been told fossil fuel is the culprit, what is the real alternative? Sun, wind, nuclear? Is there a viable alternative?
Who has a larger carbon foot print?
What are carbon credits?
Why are climate models so wrong in their projections? And always wrong on the high side?
If the global warming is the existential threat according to President Obama, why are some people not acting that way? Including politicians, celebrities, activists, environmentalists? and the elites?
To add some additional details to your opening comment:
"We have been told the science is settled by Al Gore. Is it?"
We have been told by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the current consensus among the majority of the world's scientific community is:
"Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)"(1)
"We have been told we humans are the cause? Are we really?"
We have been told:
"Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C"(2)
"We have been told fossil fuel is the culprit, what is the real alternative?"
We have been told:
"Reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal time scales (high confidence)"(3)
"Fossil fuel use is the primary source of CO2"(4)
(1) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads … one_LR.pdf (p.6, Section A.1)
(3) ibid (p.7, section A2.2)
(4) https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global … sions-data
You answered Jack's questions succinctly and with scientific answers, therefore, Jack won't believe it at all. Like Trump, he knows more about climate change than the scientists.
Yes I do in fact. There are “scientists” and there are scientists. I have attended numerous talks by climate scientists. I ask the most basic questions and they have no answers.
Why should I put my marbles on people that depend their paycheck on the NSF for funding?
They have made projections that fail to materialize and they have made excuses after excuses...
It is time they put their money where their mouth is.
Don, here is my hub on this complex topic ...
It is my second highest viewed article here on HubPages.
Jack, you've been here over 4 years and written over 600 articles in the process. From what I can tell from your bio you've yet to reach a million views.
Why should one read the works of someone with so little results from their efforts? Apparently you are so right about things people don't want to discover from you their errors. Yeah right
I don’t write for viewers. If you noticed, many of my articles are targeted for a narrow audience. I write about fencing as a sport. It is targeting a handful of people at my club and my school...
I write about my own life experiences and it is only of interested for my family members, my kids and cousins and nieces and nephews...
I write about my travels, my most popular article is about my trip to China. It gets on average 20 views per day.
I write about religion, and finances and technology...
You are welcome to explore all my writings but I couldn’t care less.
I write mainly for me. I belong to a writers group in my local library. Some of my writings are political. It gets lots of feedback and some are very controversial. I am conservative but I live in a very liberal blue state of NY...I stand my ground and they respect me. I am giving them an opinion from the other side and once in a while, it breaks through.
Here are the contents of my topics...
This is how most of my hubs are divided...
Giving who an opinion, Jack? You made my point for me by admitting you have very few people who even want to read your stuff. I tried, but dang Jack, your hubs are even less entertaining and factual than your political comments on the forums..
I'll hit 4 million views in the next week or so, even as this is my off time of the year to garner views. Some of my hubs will hit a million views apiece in the near future.
See where I'm going ,Jack? If you're not getting at least decent traffic to a hub, you may not want to use it as a good example of your opinion. Don't bother to thank me...
Yes Randy, you are so smart and everyone read your articles as gospel. So why are you here arguing with me?
Because as I already stated, I dislike those who spread fake news as truth. As you are a firm believer in Limbaugh, I think says it all!
Limbaugh is a great conservative. The fact you have such a low opinion of Limbaugh says more about you than me.
He has 20 million listeners, every day for 3 hours.
Since you are so addicted to numbers...
What does that tell you?
Tell me? It tells me there are a least 20,000,000 more idiots than I ever suspected!
And Hillary won the popular vote if you're counting stuff..
Who cares about the popular vote. It is the electoral college that wins the Presidency.
So Rush’s listeners are idiots?
What does that make you?
Who can’t accept the fact that your side lost a general election which you should have won by a landslide. According to all polls....
But you were speaking of Rush being right because of his listeners, right? What percentage of the rest of the population listens to the other outlets? What's the voting population at the present time? Do you even know?
Go check out viewship of Msnbc and cnn? How many people watch them or NPR?
There is a good reason Rush is king of talk radio and it you my friend are clueless.
By the way, not all of Rush’s audience are one minded. Many Democrats check in also...
You might want to check it out sometimes and may just learn something.
Another evasive answer Jack? Can you not read well? Once again for the answer-reluctant people, What's the voting population a the present time?
And you're correct, many democrats tune in to rush, which heightens his ratings, but we listen for his ridiculous conspiracies and unintended humor. You listen because you trust the swine...
Remember when he was so down on drug users and was caught doctor shopping to get more oxycontin than was already prescribed by several of his present doctors? Do you remember, Jack?
A real sweetheart he is....
Must you denigrade someone else to make you seem superior?
Rush is a patriot. Rush is an entertainer. Rush is a genius compared to all the political pundits out there. He is from outside the beltway. Yet, he know about how our democracy works better than anyone...
Between Rush, and Mark Levin and Michael Savage, the triple play of Conservatism, you guys have nothing even come close.
So what military branch did ole Doctor shopper serve in, Jack! You simply believe he's patriotic because you see yourself as such.
And the other 3 idiots you listed only makes your argument weaker. It's no one's fault only the uninformed listen to these dudes. I don't want anyone from the left "have nothing even come close" as you put it.
Simply keep avoiding hard questions, Jack. It's the only thing you're good at here.
Randy, it must bother the hell out of you I was right about Trump...
Your TDS just can’t let it go? Can you?
Try to stop and breathe for a change.
I am not your enemy.
You are your worst enemy...
Those who seems to have the most conviction are the ones most disturbed by the truth once discovered.
It shakes your belief to the core.
Right about what, Jack? Your silly poll you posted as "gospel."
TDS is as real as your belief in Limbaugh.
My breathing is normal as it always is when I face fake news.
No, you're not my enemy, but you and those like you do the country great harm by supporting a sleazy conman.
And your other statements show how sure you are you're correct. Namely, bull cookies! So deep your are, Obi Wan!
I think this issue is somewhat similar to the vaccination issue. With the recent outbreaks of Measles around the U.S., I think we can safely conclude that anybody who believes that vaccinations are a "hoax" is an idiot. These people should be prosecuted and jailed for endangering the public. That so-called "hoax" claim about vaccinations comes as a result of people distrusting scientists and government. Instead of believing the experts, they assume they know better.
Climate change is the same sort of issue. Experts are all telling us something very clearly. Those who don't want to believe it because they "know better" or because they just naturally distrust expertise and government (or whatever else they distrust) are endangering the rest of us logical people who, when the doctor tells us we have a health issue, we believe him because he's an expert and has had years of schooling. We don't walk out of his office, go on the internet, and prescribe ourselves some medication based on what we find because it fits what we wanted to hear. Maybe you get a second opinion. But when the second doctor, along with a thousand other doctors, tells you the same thing, you take their advice.
Only an idiot would choose to ignore that advice.
There are trained and experienced climate scientists who do not believe in man-made global warming.
https://thebestschools.org/features/top … cientists/
You are absolutely correct and I listed a bunch in my hub as well...
Did you even read that article? Because only the 5th guy says the man made influence is not high. The others say what I said in my first reply here: we need a lot more data for an accurate prediction but the predictions are not far off.
They disagree with the means to battle it. One of the 5 suggests nuclear energy and I along with many others support nuclear energy.
What is clear from that article is that these people were forced to resign based on public opinion and not expert opinion. The other experts didn't want to get caught in the crossfire and therefore withdrew support. The uneducated public unfortunately has the largest voice in the world. The same public is the reason politicians are turning off the nuclear plants and not planning new ones.
Every one of them is right in saying that it's become a political issue and this leads to uneducated people chipping in without an expert opinion.
What the 5th guy says is right to some extent. The Earth is built to let in and out radiation and it could increase with the position of earth in the galaxy. But the greenhouse gases keep the energy trapped. Remember that the sun is a star too and the radiation we get from the sun is a lot more than any other star. To understand this turn on a flash light a cm in front of your face and many more 20km away. Which one sends you more photovoltaic radiation? Do those at 20km even make any real difference?
Lastly, not in line with this article because all of the 5 who are said to be against it actually believe in man made climate change. But when a doctor says you've got cancer why do you go for a second opinion? The first guy is an expert. He could be wrong, right? So among thousands of doctors if 5 day you got kidney cancer and 995 say you don't, do you go ahead and get that kidney removed? Assuming that the 5 say that the kidney removal saves your life.
Lastly, I am sure Jack didn't read the article you shared. So this is something important for him to understand before he can give his "expert" opinion.
You might be asking yourself: “If I wanted to become a climate scientist and contribute to this work, how should I go about it? What should I study?”
Climate science is a field with many different points of entry. Here is a list of the topics in which our climate scientists have taken their PhD's:
Applied Mathematics (1)
Atmospheric Science (1)
Marine Geology (1)
Planetary Atmospheres (1)
Mathematical/Theoretical Physics (x2)
Here is the breakdown of doctoral fields of study for the 15 climate scientists on our list:
one in applied mathematics;
one in chemistry;
nine in geology and related fields; and
four in physics, including mathematical/theoretical physics.
Some additional subjects that also might lead into climate science might include the following:
Earth and Environmental Sciences
If you try, you can probably come up with still more fields of study that would be relevant to the highly synthetic field of climate science.
Note: It should go without saying, but we'll say it anyway---to pursue a professional career in climate science, you will need a PhD degree.
None of the above matters...
What does matter is if you believe in the greenhouse effect or not, and if the hockey stick theory is correct...
In both scenario, we are all screwed. There is nothing man can do to stop either scenario.
I don’t believe it because I have common sense. The earth is massive. It will do what it will do with or without man and his fossil fuel. It will go through its cycles of ice age about every 100,000 years.
It will go through it s warming and cooling every 100 years or so...
It will change based on volcanos and asteroids...and earthquakes...
It will do all the natural events it was created...and there is little if any we can affect the outcome.
That is my belief now, until further evidence to the contrary.
All the current climate models are incomplete.
They tend to over emphasize the greenhouse effect.
By the way, the best way to convince people of climate science and its improbability is Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Just watch it and see how mistaken he was back in 2006...and now.
Sadly you do have common sense. The common man has no clue of how things work. Unfortunately you are not smart enough to see the actual evidence.
To even think man is not enough to alter the Earth speaks volumes on your understanding of the world you live in.
Really? How would you alter the earth?
Just try and destroy all life on earth? I am giving you the power of God. How would you kill off all life on earth?
I am serious.
People, especially environmentalist, thinks the earth is so fragile that any small changes is a catastrophe...the reality is just the opposite. Our earth is very resilient...and life itself is very resilient. That is why after a major asteroid strike that kill off the dinosaurs, we mammals survived, and thrived. In addition, the cockroaches have been around even longer...
I go back to my original question.
How would you kill off all life on earth if you had the power to do so?
The Earth isn't gonna be destroyed. You will just not be able to live comfortably. The population of man will drop or in the worst case disappear. Also God did not create the Earth.
Adapt (evolve) or die (as a species). The story of life for the last 4 billion years.
Yes and on these time scales man will have to adapt because it's too small a scale to evolve.
Under the assumption that armageddon is only a few decades away, yes. But a few thousand? Evolution has been known to proceed startling fast, particularly when the genes needed are already there (we didn't evolve in the current climate and temperatures).
Man has not evolved in a thousand years. It took millions of years.
Also I can live in Canada because man used tools and clothing. There are very few variations that help man such as the Tibetans who can breathe well at lower pressures. Man has mostly adapted and not evolved over the last thousands of years.
And yet we can see our own evolution, in recorded history if not our own lifetimes. Average size is one area we know is changing. Retention of wisdom teeth another, and size of the toes. We find genes, and traits, from Neanderthals in our own makeup; it's called evolution through hybridization. Same for other non-human species.
It does not always take millions of years to evolve. And environmental change is one of the greatest forces behind evolution; rapidly change the environment and we will see rapid evolution. In more species than just man.
Other species will evolve faster than man. Especially those with faster life cycles. The retention of wisdom teeth and the fact that we grow taller is due to diet and hygiene. There's proof on this and there are a few documentaries. The proportion of your toe to the first pharoes that are preserved are pretty similar too. If there is no rapid change to our environment we would evolve fast enough for sure.
We would not be losing around 200 species each day if evolution was fast enough. The only other time something as drastic but on a lower magnitude happened was during the period the dinosaurs went extinct. There could have been times in the 4 billion years where it was worse but this further shows that something big is happening whether you believe in climate change or not. It's mans alteration of the natural environment along with climate that's causing this extinction.
You misunderstood; I worded it poorly. We aren't retaining our wisdom teeth; we are losing them. And height is not due to diet and hygiene alone; there is a definite genetic factor as well.
We are mostly losing species because we kill them off deliberately or because we change their environment (think rain forest to city streets, not minute changes in temperature or co2 levels.)
The dinosaur killer asteroid produced only one of the mass die-offs in the planet's history.
"Around 439 million years ago, 86% of life on Earth was wiped out. Scientists believe two major events resulted in this extinction: glaciation and falling sea levels."
"Estimates propose that around 75% of species were lost around 364 million years ago. Information is unclear as to whether the late Devonian extinction was one single major event or spread over hundreds of thousands of years."
"This mass extinction, which occurred 251 million years ago, is considered the worst in all history because around 96% of species were lost. Ancient coral species were completely lost. “The Great Dying” was caused by an enormous volcanic eruption that filled the air with carbon dioxide which fed different kinds of bacteria that began emitting large amounts of methane."
"The Triassic-Jurassic extinction happened between 199 million and 214 million years ago and as in other mass extinctions, it is believed there were several phases of species loss. The blame has been placed on an asteroid impact, climate change, and flood basalt eruptions."
"Perhaps the most well-known of the Big 5, the end of the Cretaceous-Paleogene brought on the extinction of dinosaurs. A combination of volcanic activity, asteroid impact, and climate change effectively ended 76% of life on earth 65 million years ago."
"There could have been times in the 4 billion years where it was worse but this further shows that something big is happening whether you believe in climate change or not."
A couple of hundred extinctions out of the tens of thousands of species does NOT show "something big is happening". Compare it to the other mass extinctions where as much as 96% of life on earth died.
"It's mans alteration of the natural environment along with climate that's causing this extinction."
And there is the major sticking point, for not everyone swallows that man is the primary culprit in warming. Yes, man is responsible for changing the environment in other ways (creating cities where rodents survive but elephants can't), but I don't think that's what we're talking about. Is it?
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the … earth.html
In all these cases there was a natural calamity and it's aftermath that caused the extensions. What natural calamity did we have in the last 10 generations? https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/pro … on_crisis/
I did say we are changing the environment and habitat. The coral reefs today are not dying due to a loss of habitat. And when I talk about it I talk about man destroying the habitat too because that's one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle.
I'm travelling so I can't quote stuff from your reply it's too irritating on the phone.
What you don’t believe in a Supreme being? Why am I not surprised.
So you think everything just happened by accident?
Yes in the same way God accidentally created himself.
You do know many reputable scientists do believe in God...
The two are not mutually exclusive. Science and Spiritual world have overlaps but are not operating in the same space.
The best book on this topic is The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder.
You hit on an important fact - those who believe in God do not need proof to believe in anything. They simply "know" things because they have faith or they believe. Therefore, arguing science with them is a fool's errand.
Push it into the sun. Push it outside the galaxy.
Either would, according to current understanding of energy and life, do the trick. Not much else could guarantee it.
How would you do that? What I offered to you must follow the laws of physics? How would you push the earh into the sun?
Ha! The old novel--Bible to the believers--recorded many things going against the laws of physics, Jack. Sun standing still, zombies walking the earth, great flood with nowhere for the water to come from or drain to, etc.
Orion would be a possibility, using either a large asteroid to change the orbit of earth, or even the earth itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
But you did not limit it to current abilities and knowledge: you said "if you had the power to do so". Don't tell me that it is physically impossible to move a planet - that the laws of nature, or even Newtonian physics of action/reaction make it impossible.
Prove it in English and not Physics or it ain't so.
Yes, it is impossible. Given the state of the solar system, it is impossible to move the earth toward the sun. The gravitational pull would stop it.
Let me explain how unique life on earth is...
The odds of having all the elements lined up in such a fashion so we can exist here on earth is astronomical...
Here are just a few items for you to consider.
1. the Sun.
2. The moon, in just the right orbit...
3. The tilt of the earth 23.5 degrees...
4. The fact we have water...a unique compound...
5. The fact we have a mix of Oxygen, nitrogen and CO2...
6. The fact we have Carbon as the base...
7. The Ozone layer for protection.
8. The magnetic core...
9. The outer planets, of saturn and jupiter...
Do the math...
There have already been planets discovered with these specifications. Out of unknown trillions of such solar systems it's very likely many perfect matches are possible. But you already knew that because you're so brilliant.
That is false. So far, there is no other planets with those same properties that allow life as we know it to exist.
I forgot, Jack. You're an astronomy expert as well. Now that I think of it, I may a brain tumor and I'd like to get a second opinion from you. I'll send you my X-rays other brain scans for you to peruse and tell me if my doc is any good.
He is not called Jack for no reason. God knew he would be a Jack of all trades and master of none.
You forgot I have been following this stuff for many years. I attend lectures at LDEO...where they discuss rhe latest technological innovations in telescopes and ...
They are barely finding some exoskeleton planets but no Moon as yet...
Even it they eventually do find them, what are the odds of a moon of sufficent size to keep our planet from spinning out of control?
There are just so many parameters...
The moon does not control the spin of the earth; it won't "spin out of control" without a large, nearby, moon.
It might wobble more on it's axis, but then neither mars nor venus does, so why would the earth?
I've been following it too. Also, have you forgotten the kind of "experts" you have been listening to? Some of them could not explain time scales to you regarding climate and volcanoes and stuff a toddler in the field would understand.
I have a hard time believing these space experts are any different, considering you've got it all wrong again.
Stop with the condecension. You don’t have any answers either.
That was my point in the start of this discussion. These climate scientists claim they know what is going on...the science is settled... but they really don’t know. The science is not settled. It is a complex subject matter...and we need to studied more before committing huge resources to try and solve a problem which may or may not exist...and if it does exist, we may not be able to change anyway.
I do not tolerate people who do not know anything about a topic having their voices heard. I will point out the falsehood in all your discussion when they are obviously false.
The next time you hear one of your experts talk about inhabitable planets take a print out of this webpage http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-e … ts-catalog
You are here on hubpages community just as I and we have a free exchange of opinion. You are no better or worse than anyone else.
Just because you dosagree, does not give you the right to belitttle others with different opinion. If everyone listens to you, why do we need a hubpages...anyone can google what experts tell us...
Don’t give me this crap about your ability to tolerate or not.
If you don’t like what is being posted, just walk away...
If you are up to the debate, bring it on.
I brought it on and you were proven wrong.
Politics can be debated. You cannot debate whether the earth is flat or not, you cannot debate whether vaccines cause autism and you cannot debate whether global warming is influenced by man or not, because they are all scientific fact. In the same way, you cannot debate that there are no other planets that are habitable, because it has been proven that there are.
Hubpages is a platform to learn. There will be others reading this too, they are known as forum lurkers. So, as long as I can explain that you are wrong, I will because the lack of people standing up to facts is the reason public opinion on scientific facts is allowed to thrive. So no, I will not walk away from any thread where you act like an expert when you obviously are not.
I disagree. You continue to use the flat earth analogy used by Al Gore and it is not an accurate description of Global warming skeptics. We don’t think the earth is flat but we also don’t think the globe is warming because of human activity. There are many scientists including Nobel winners who are on my side. So how is that a problem? This issue og AGW is only a theory and not proven. The fact that so many on your side are attempting to shut down discussion is prove to me that you guys are all wet. If the science is so solid and settled, then show me the proof. Where are your predictions of future events that have come true? Made 20 years ago?
. . . we also don’t think the globe is warming because of human activity
You are actively saying AGW is untrue. That's not skepticism. It's denial.
"This issue og AGW is only a theory . . ."
In science, "theory" is not a dirty word.
All scientific knowledge is tentative. Not certain. That's the nature of science. It's based on abductive reasoning. Calling a scientific explanation a "theory" doesn't reflect a lack of confidence in the idea.
We don't call it "The Theory of General Relativity" because we're not sure if E really equals mc2. It's because even the most widely accepted scientific ideas will (and can only) offer the current most likely explanation for a given phenomenon.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is the current most likely explanation for the global warming we see. Saying it's a "theory" is not the criticism you seem to think it is.
"There are many scientists including Nobel winners who are on my side. So how is that a problem?"
Neither you nor I have the expertise to do original research into climate change Jack.
(And by research I don't mean looking things up on Google. We can all do that. I mean creating the statistical and mathematical models necessary to draw useful conclusions from the raw data; applying the principles of fluid dynamics, and so on).
As we can't check the science directly, our beliefs and actions on climate change are necessarily based on information from third-parties. All we can do is decide which sources we are going to accept as reliable.
On one side of this discussion Jack is you and other AGW deniers. On the other is almost every National Academy of Science on the planet that has either issued a statement, or supported a statement supporting AGW (none has refuted that global warming is mainly being caused by human activity)(1).
On that basis alone it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude AGW is highly likely.
You may argue scientific theories are not accepted based on consensus, but that's misleading. AGW is not deemed highly likely by National Academies of Science based on consensus. It's deemed highly likely because the evidence is sufficient to warrant high confidence level in its general accuracy.
It's you and I who accept (or reject) scientific theories based on consensus, because we have to. We cannot check the science directly. So we rely on others to translate the theories into colloquial terms, then weigh up their reliability as a source of information.
That's one of the reasons these types of discussion boils down to who the sources are. In this case the sources that accept AGW as the best current explanation for climate change, vastly outnumber and outweigh those that do not, to a point where denying it is beyond skepticism and into the realms of absurd denialism.
(1) http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-sci … tions.html
You have not proven anything...go read up on “the scientific method” and tell me if the science of climate change passes the muster.
I just showed you that the 5 experts that are said to be against the rest are not against AGW. You chose to ignore that comment.
Also, from a computational background, you should know that 20 years ago computers were not powerful enough to work on LES models. If you do not even know this, I feel sorry for you.
I was doing computer simulations when you were in diapers...
Did you know there are classes of problems that have little to do with compute power? Go look it up...climate is such a class of problem.
If your memory is still good at your seemingly old age, you will recall that I said the Navier Stokes equation is not solvable and therefore it needs iterations and solid computer power to be solved. The Navier stoke equation is one of the 6 million dollar problems and it deals with fluid flow, which the climate is a part of. The equations can be solved on iterations and solid computer power, but they cannot be solved by hand on paper. So you are wrong, yet again, it has EVERYTHING to do with computer power.
Also, can you look at this report https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world … ecadalTemp and this data and say that there is no correlation with changes and the industrial revolution, a period that is nowhere on the map if you map things on geological time scales?
Just to correct you, I'm sure you were doing computer simulations before I was born, I know it's difficult to be proven wrong by someone with fewer years of work experience, I would find it difficult too.
No, you did not prove me wrong. I told you there are classes of problems that cannot be solved with faster computers. Climate change is such a problem. Show me a computer simulation that have predicted climate change accurately. I challenge you...it can’t be done.
My knowledge and expertise in computer simulation is based on knowing the limitation of simulation models. As good as many simulation models, it is no replacement for the real thing. Don’t you agree?
If the measurements are such and different than a predictive model simulation, I would go with the measurements everytime...
Yes, I did prove you wrong. The climate problem is a class of problems that is solved with faster computers. Period. I am not here to explain basic fluid dynamics nor basic iteration functions to you. Google is your friend.
You are all over the place, you refuse to see facts that are presented, did you even look at those links? If I prove to you that the models work, you will again say AGW is not proven and you'd expect me to prove it to you again.
You are a lost cause who still lives in the 80s. Your knowledge has not increased with time. I'm going to leave it at that, because I have provided you enough information and sources through these 11 pages on the forum if you honestly want to "learn" something you say you love doing.
You demostrated one small aspects of the problem. The climate change is much more complex and with many cycles and dynamics that is too complex to model. You must admit to that?
If not, then the discussion is useless.
We fundamentally disagree on the scope of this issue.
If you read my article, you would know that.
All current climate models, all 33 of them, fall short.
I am not a climate denier. I call for more study of the problem and a concerted effort by the international community to work on a universal model for climate. One that is more complete and include all drivers of climate change, human and natural causes...
Who is this juditcurry.com where you got that report from? Even the Guardian shows the actual IPCC data with measurements and there is amazing accuracy: https://www.theguardian.com/environment … s-accurate
Read the cherry-picking part point 3 on that report. It is exactly what this image of yours is doing.
I'm reading your articles now. This is some of what you say:
"I just don’t buy into the claim that CO2 is a pollutant and must be controlled" - Are you serious? Excess CO2 is a problem. On it's own it is not a pollutant, anything that takes away from a balance and causes destruction is a problem.
"As an engineer by training, I have a logical and unbiased mind. I will let the facts and evidence guide me." - As an engineer, you should understand that CO2 + H2O = Carbonic acid, increased amounts of which change the pH of the oceans and damage the ecosystem. Convinced yet? Of course not, because you are not a logical thinker. I do believe that you honestly think you are logical though. This does not change facts.
Now, form this hub: https://hubpages.com/literature/Some-Qu … Scientists
Question 1 and 2: Already answered, time scales matter.
Question 3: You think that's a simple calculation? You definitely do not understand all that goes into it. We know how much heat is required to melt a certain amount of ice, but you need to know how and where that heat is going to go to determine the date of melting. But we know the average amount of heat energy that is increasing in the world.
Question 4: Why must you repeat yourself? CO2 is not a pollutant, but it is a problem because it is a greenhouse gas which is necessary to some extent. The same way man needs some sugar in their diet but not excess. Eat a bag of sugar each day and you will see that sugar even though it is healthy and necessary is a problem.
Question 5. Oh damn, the Final Question: What percent is due to natural and human activity? Is that really your question? Don't you understand that it is a system and everything works together? Due to the excess green house gases in the atmosphere because of man, the natural radiation from the sun is trapped more and more each year, leading to warming. This natural radiation which you term natural activity then leads to the drying up of swamps leading to more CO2 and CH4 which is Methane from Methane hydrates that end up in the atmosphere, which together with more man made green house gases rises up and so on and so forth.
Man is not powerful enough to cause warming in the sense that he adds heat. All energy on the Earth other than from the core of the planet is from the sun. All the warming we feel is due to natural causes which would not have happened without human activity. Not on the timeline of the industrial revolution to today.
There every single one of your questions has been answered. No further clarification is needed because, you say: "If they can answer them to my satisfaction, I will be convinced.".
So all I can say to you now is this: Welcome to the side that understands the basic principles of how our home works. It's good to have you join us.
I would love to reiterate what I said, those experts you listen to who can't answer this are no experts. These are questions, high school students in Asia and Europe can answer. I can't speak for the rest of the world.
Except you think you answered it...
Why does the EPA not specify CO2 as a pollutant? As you say...
Why not water vapor...because it is also a green house gas...
Or Methane... you know the kind cows give out in their fart...
You are the one simplifying things when I am pointing out how complex climate study is and we are just scratching the surface.
The fact that CO2 has risen past 400 ppm and the world did not end should give you and other Climate scientists pause to think...what is wrong with the current model?
The whole climategate email scandal is scientists discussing among themselves why they are not seeing the increased heat in temperature they had expected...
It took a whistleblower to released the content so the rest of us are in the loop...
There are so much deception in the climate change world...such as manipulation of past historical data to accentuate the current warming trends...
Because they are not pollutants. They are problems. Methane and water vapour are problems too. There are guidelines on CO2 and Methane as we can control those. We do not produce enough water vapour and water vapour comes back down as rain eventually. Methane and CO2 do not. All our water vapour is in the cycle for a long time, the CO2 is from deep underground from crude oil - do you see the difference? Of course, you won't.
We are seeing what is expected, did you even look at the link I showed you. Again, of course not. What data has been manipulated that is being used to prove climate change? I'd like to see this and debunk something else for you.
Is that a no on the brain tumor removal, Jack? I thought you were like your idol and knew more than anyone else in the field of...…..anything?
There are many. And water is found in almost so solid bodies in the solar system.
Most cosmologists will disagree with out; there are many "water planets" in the "goldilocks zone".
But in any case can you show anything at all that says bacteria cannot exist on any of the planets we know of? Keep in mind that we know very little about most of them.
"it is impossible to move the earth toward the sun. The gravitational pull would stop it. "
?? You lost me. The gravitational pull from what? The outer planets, competing against that of the sun, (or maybe on the other side of the sun and adding their pull to that of the sun) a million times stronger and 100 times closer?
Life on earth is a lot tougher than you propose. Living beings, for instance, that survive without the sun's energy and under pressures measured in tons per square inch. Organisms living at temperatures that would kill us instantly, and that are deeper in the earth than we've ever been. Organisms that need no oxygen; that die in the presence of oxygen. Life that inhales CO2 rather than exhaling it.
All of these things that you list, or at least some of them, are necessary for our survival (there is no reason to think we require Neptune out there, or an axial tile of exactly 23.5 degrees). But there is zero reason to think that it is a requirement for any life at all. We think, for instance, that there is a distinct possibility of life on Mimas; life without most of those things you list.
(I'll just add that water is hardly a "unique" compound; it is present in large quantities through the universe as we know it. Inevitable considering how common it's individual atoms are.)
Today I learned: gravitation is a repelling force which increases with the squared of the distance between bodies.
My point in all this is to put it out there for you to think about. It is estimated that the tilt of the earth of 23.5 degrees on it’s axis is crutial to our seasons. If it was a few degrees more or less. It would not work out for us. The seasons we rely on for crops would fail...
The same goes for the moon. It is really lucky that we happen to have a moon of sufficient size to keep out earth’s rotation stable so we have a narrow window of day and night transition...
Without the moon, with its gravity, we would not have waves which scientists attribute to the start of life on earth in the churning of the seas...
Aren't you all over the place. So life did begin through chemicals? Also, life can develop without requiring the seasons. Life on Earth developed the way we know it. Life on other planets would develop differently even if it happened to develop on a planet just like the Earth on an exact replica of our solar system.
The axial tilt is indeed what causes our seasons, coupled with a very small out-of-round orbit. But our planet precesses, which means that that tile changes through time; the exact seasons we are used to is NOT a requirement for life, not even for our lives.
Nor does the moon "keep the earth's rotation stable"; that rotation is slowing and one day in the far future will be one day per year. Plus, of course, life on our plant exists where days range from extremely short to extremely long (weeks in both cases).
Yes, the moon provides tides (solar tides are present but very weak). But there is no indication that it was necessary for the origin of life as wind and other disturbances (volcanic, landslides, floods, etc. even asteroid impacts) churn and mix shorelines plenty well enough to distribute chemicals.
There IS strong indication that many life forms have evolved to heavily depend on either strong tides and/or light at night, but many have not, too.
You're grasping, Jack; while earth's various species have evolved to fit our environment, and evolved as that environment changed, little of it is considered necessary for life.
The sun at exactly that temperature, size and distance
The moon at just that size and distance (it is moving away, after all)
A magnetic core
Large planets further from the sun
None of these are considered a requirement for life to evolve. It might not take on the form of homo sapiens, but so what?
"The earth is massive. It will do what it will do with or without man and his fossil fuel. "
Never forget that it was lowly bacteria that produced an oxygen rich atmosphere from a reducing one. Life CAN, and does, change the earth.
Yes, I am not denying that. We can all be wiped out by ebola virus...
I was speaking more about the climate and earth temperature and ice shelve melting...
The time it will take greenland to melt is on the order of 1000 years, not decades. That is my proposition. No scientist have come up with a better projection.
So was I. I'm not positive, but that reducing atmosphere probably contained a good bit of "greenhouse gases", keeping the earth warm. When they were replaced with oxygen (including the ozone layer) the climate, and the organisms that could grow and prosper on earth, changed radically. It was not about one life form eradicating another; it was about changing the entire atmosphere and thereby the cycle of life that the earth would support.
But don't misunderstand; I don't believe the dire projections either. Or that man is the primary cause of warming. I just mention that life of various kinds can and does alter the entire earth environment.
Hahaha. No scientist is better than you on a topic where you don't understand the A of the ABCs. If you don't see how full of yourself you are, it's just sad.
"None of those matter" That says it all for you, Jack! You're hopeless at any sort of scientific endeavor.
Maybe. But I have been right about so many things, I am willing to take my chances. You and other lemmings are hopeless.
I haven't noticed you being right about anything climate related, Jack. Or anything else either...
Coming from you that’s a compliment.
I have been right about Trump winning the election in 2016...does that count?
Randy, you just gave me an idea for my next hub.
I will provide an honest assessment of all the things I have been right and wrong about.,.so far.
It should be interesting since I cover all topics, not just politics, or technology or religion, or just climate...
I predicted Trump will win the 2016 election. I have proof. I was sitting in a table in Beijing China among some friends and colleagues. One Chinese official asked who will win, and when I gave my response, they all laughed.
They were not too funny after the election.
No, you made that up. There was no Russian collusion.
My reason for picking Trump is because I follow the political landscape.
I realized Hillary had too much baggage and many democrats especially women did not like her.
I also sense the country needed a change after Obama and someone who is an outsider to politics. Trump fit the bill.
The other reason is Trump is a winner. He has been a winner all his life. He has the luck or the quality that captures the immagination...bigger than life image.
Er….he's had 5 bankruptcies and no one except foreign powers will loan him money because of them. Yes, a real winner!
Have you inside info on the Mueller investigation, Jack? Or are your psychic powers in effect?
And no doubt he captured your imagination, but then, that doesn't seem to be very difficult if he could do it.
Popular opinion is not scientific fact. I responded to this righteous prediction already.
Fine how about the demise of the film camera. I worked at IBM Research back in the 1990s on TDI CCD...and advanced digital imaging. I predicted digital camera will over take film camera a decade before it came to being...
And I predicted cell phones, so what? Does this make me a genius?
Again not scientific fact. Talk about factual stuff and not things people choose to do.
What? Are you from this world? Give me your idea of a prediction coming true? I want to make sure you and I are on the same page. Or you are just pulling my leg...and wasting my time.
I would never pull your leg. Trust me. Having a discussion with you is tiring. All I am asking for is a prediction where it was not a matter of people's choice rather a natural phenomenon that you predicted
Because you say your capability to predict some silly things only relevant to man allows you to predict the fate of the world as we know it
"What is clear from that article is that these people were forced to resign based on public opinion and not expert opinion. The other experts didn't want to get caught in the crossfire and therefore withdrew support."
I would say this statement supports my belief that global warming caused by man is a hoax. If scientist are not able to perform experiments and go where the science leads them, it is not science. It is science being performed to confirm an agenda. That is not science but politics. It means that all results are suspect since they are done to support a political agenda and not for the sake of establishing a scientific truth.
"Every one of them is right in saying that it's become a political issue and this leads to uneducated people chipping in without an expert opinion."
I have news for you, it can even lead to educated people chipping in without expert opinion. So, what would the theory of global warming being caused by man look like if the politics has been removed from the equation at the beginning and scientists being able to just use science to determine if it is true or not? I imagine it would look pretty different.
Here is an interesting article about climate change data being changed and distorted. It is from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"a series of case studies produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program between 2004 and 2010 to document the abuses highlighted in our 2004 report, Scientific Integrity in Policy Making"
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center- … GxtNOhKhdg
"I would say this statement supports my belief that global warming caused by man is a hoax. "
Really? This shows how you interpret things. You're all interpretation and no fact. This isn't literature, remember that. We aren't analyzing and discussing Shakespeare. This proves my point in how the uneducated public tries to analyze things they do not understand, this is how news anchors do their job too.
I have news for you, all your stuff is circled around the USA. No, the USA is not the world. There are reports form Denmark, the Netherlands, UK, France, Japan, China and India among many others that show climate change is happening and that man is the major influencer. The White House is the only one that tried to hide this, against what you are claiming.
Also, are you reading the same piece of work that I am? What you just linked to strongly supports the man-made climate change concept and shows how politics by Bush tried to hide and change stuff.
Quote begins **
The edits were made by Philip A. Cooney, then chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who formerly worked for the American Petroleum Institute and led the oil industry’s drive to prevent restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.32 Mr. Cooney is a lawyer with no scientific training.
In one example, Cooney edited an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, called "Our Changing Planet," by inserting the word "extremely" into the sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult." In another instance, Cooney deleted a paragraph that projected reductions of mountain glaciers and snowpacks in a report examining the impact of global warming on water availability and flooding. In the margins he wrote that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."
If anything the White House tried to play politics, yes, but to deny the factual science of global warming and the influence man is having on it.
And there are people who believe the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. This does not make it true and, if you have any expertise in astrophysics or really, just common education, you don't believe those people. Unfortunately, climate science is a bit more complicated, so when the average person finds the one person among ten thousand who has a different opinion, they can latch onto that opinion and claim it represents a disagreement when scientifically speaking, it does not.
But really, throw anything out there - cigarette smoking causes cancer. I'll find a doctor who doesn't agree that it causes cancer. Does that mean I should start smoking cigarettes?
"the average person finds the one person among ten thousand" ?????? Now, on the flip side it is also disingenuous to report large numbers of people believe in something when that also is not true. I'm referring to 97 percent of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change. Absolutely false.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei … 1b364d3f9f
Look who woke up from hiding ignoring the response to his previous link.
Again, it's the public that says 97% of scientists and it's common knowledge that PhDs in literature are considered in this 97%.
Hi lobobrandon. I have been following your climate change exchanges, (as a forum lurker - but only because I am not knowledgeable enough to enter the discussion), and would be interested in your view of the Forbes article. Is it a valid perspective or a biased spin piece?
Is there any truth to its explanation of the origin of the 97% claim? Is his focus on the Cook study valid as explaining the origin of the claim?
It's 11 pm here, I'll get back to you after work tomorrow It's gonna be a somewhat lengthy reply.
I would not put much value in what the guy in the Forbes article is saying, because he says this:
"If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible."
No one analysing data who knows anything about analyzing data would say that you need to be over 50% to be a majority. He goes on to say this:
"This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent."
No that is not common usage. It may be the common usage in political fronts where a majority is usually 50% and higher. This shows that the author does not have a scientific background, but possibly (not necessarily) a poltical one and a reason why he should not be considered a voice to be listened to when it comes to scientific facts.
Another statement made by him: "Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions."
If this 97 % were right (he says if not me), it means the end of mankind as we know it, the climate refugees, the changes to the ecosystem and our food supply chains and a lot more would affect every single person on the planet.
His (Forbes guys) bio does say he is in close ties with the fossil fuel industry, not surprising. The industry knew for many years before it became public knowledge that Global warming was a thing, but they didn’t care because they were making billions and they mostly don’t care now. DONG changed to Orsted because they didn’t want to be associated with OnG anymore. They realized and had to change because their population is educated enough on the topic to not endorse an OnG company anymore. Public opinion is a big thing, and this guy is trying to win that, nothing more.
Adding tons of fertilzers that do not decompose in the top 15 meters of the soil harms the food cycle and water table. But fertilizers feed billions of people, this does not mean it's not something we need to change. This is a whole different story, there are a lot of documentaries discussing this.
I see a smart statement in there: "Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists ..." THIS! There are many studies out there where they say 90%+ of scientists agree, etc and the 10% that disagree are PhDs in literature! I can’t find this again, it was a Wikipedia article and I pointed this out to Jack in some other thread a few months ago (Won’t be surprised if he denies it, he’s forgotten a lot I said in the last 24 hours and brings up the same questions).
This is what the Forbes guy says about Cooks study: " Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man."
As I explained in another reply to Jack, this is the dumbest question one could ask and it shows how little they understand about climate change. Climate change is not caused by one factor and the effects are not separable, they all add up one on top of another and it therefore cannot be quantified in terms of what causes it because anything above the nominal trend is 100% man made. See my reply to his question 5 here for a simplistic explanation: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/342 … ost4063150
From the Forbes article: "Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming."
I would like to see the credibility of this 1.6 percent of scientists who say that global warming is 50% man-made (that is if they quantified it, the person who analyzed it was not mentioned and who knows whether they know to analyze stuff or not, considering the kind of people that are doing all these analyses) because as explained, it is not something separable and you cannot assign a percentage to what man is doing. Man is responsible for 100% of the sudden increase, but 100% of that energy comes from natural causes (solar radiation) that is trapped in the atmosphere than man has changed. Does this imply that 100% is caused by two entities: solar radiation and man making it 50-50 each, if yes and that's how it needs to be explained to the public, so be it. But that's total BS.
The same thing, but something from the article:
This is what the article says about Cook: "Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it."
If that is true, the credentials of the one that fall under the explicit endorsement need to be checked, some of them did comment and call bull on Cook who is a cognitive scientist and not a climate scientist. He does have better credibility to understand climate reports than the Forbes author, but that does not imply he did a good job or did it the right way, because he did a stupid job about it and in trying to bring out the message, this report by Cook, a “scientist” is being used to show the public that “climate scientists” do not know what they are talking about.
If I were in the same maturity level as some of the deniers, I would go on to say that it is a long con and Cook is paid by the OnG lobby to publish this research so that it could be proven wrong and used as leverage. But I know this is not true and Cook seems to be an honest guy who thought he was doing some research, but unfortunately it was not right.
This statement by one of the scientists referred in Cooks paper is very right from the looks of it (I have not read Cooks paper just extracts and an analysis by this guy on Forbes who is also a joker, with less understanding than Cook. I also am not 100% sure this statement is true and that he was actually referred to). But I still agree with the message.
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
P.S: I do not know Dr. Nicola Scafetta, but this is what I would say Cook did based on reading the analysis (if that counts as an analysis) on Forbes.
To reiterate, global warming cannot be quantified in terms of the percentage caused by man, because anything above the trend is 100% man made and is should be a crime to give equal prominence to a Urologist and a Cardiologist when it comes to heart disease.
Had some free time before bed so I wrote it out. Good night.
Thanks lobobrandon, you gave more than was asked, but the effort is appreciated.
I had reservations about the content when I read the author's bio. My primary question was whether this Cook study was the origin of the 97% claim.
I am always put on guard when any statement is supported by "they" say or said. They say 97%, well who is they? Did the scientists, (can it be concluded that 97% is only referring to climate scientists? Per you Professors of Literature examples, I am skeptical), gather, do a head count, and say "Yep, we are 97% of all scientists?"
My question isn't pointed in a pro or anti-change direction, I just want to know where that 97% came from. As it stands, the way I hear it stated as undeniable validation of the proof of climate change, I am beginning to wonder if it's a scientist's version of a Book of Gospel.
"They say... so it is so." As for me, they may say, but I will continue to look for who determined the "they."
The 97% claim is something the public and media use and yes, it's origin is very likely the Cook study as people have always pointed out to it.
From the 97% it has to be scientists because he studied peer reviewed papers. No it cannot be concluded that 97% are only climate related scientists.
No the literature example will not fit into this 97% because they would not have published any peer reviewed work on climate. But, this literature PhD was quoted in a wikipedia article that Jack shared showing that some scientists do not believe in AGW.
This is not a political stance so there is no pro or anti. There is only acceptance or denial as the data is public and anyone with a decent analytical mind can see it. Economists would definitely be able to see the trends in the data and make conclusions too.
Holy books are based on faith and if you dont know something you are told to believe because it is written. Here the data and facts are out for everyone to see. It would not be wise to compare the two.
The only they you should be concerned about is the experts in the field and it's almost unanimous (only one guy with some reputation) who does not believe that man-made climate change is a big thing. I would trust the majority of cardiologists and not believe the one if the one guy says I'm all good when the others say I need a bypass done.
It's up to you to believe what you want to, because that's what the public is doing, they are making up their minds based on political and economic reasons. What needs to be done to fight it can be based on politics and economics, but the fact that it is happening is not up for debate.
It's the same thing with CFLs and the ozone hole. Had social media been alive back then, there would never have been a fix to that problem. When the world united once, what's stopping them from doing so again? It's just political agendas and people who are hoarding onto money for a future where the money may be worthless.
"... it's origin is very likely the Cook study as people have always pointed out to it. "
That was the point of my question lobobrandon. Now I am off to see for myself.
Regarding your "Holy Book" response, I disagree, and your explanation seems to support that disagreement. You say it is a belief because it is written.
If most folks, and most folks repeating the claim, don't know where that 97% claim came from, if they don't know who the "they" is, then aren't they accepting it on belief - because it is written, (or spoken)?
The rest of your response addresses points that weren't in my comment. Except for the pro or anti thing. That was just a short-hand version of saying accepters or deniers. However, true facts may not be political, but I think this subject, and some of the facts tossed around are very much political. Would you deny that the 97% claim has been politicized?
What if the truth is, as the Forbes guy said, (not his rebuttal claims), that the 97% was relative to a count of studies reviewed and extrapolated to a general statement that sounds like an actual scientist headcount?
That is the point of my original question. I would say that the vast majority of folks that hear that 97% claim think it is an actual headcount of climate scientists but is that factually correct? It appears it may not be if it is derived from Cook's study analysis.
Don't presume I am speaking as a denier, or that I am just being picky. I think it is important that such a powerful and frequently referenced point should be understood for what it really says, not just what the public perception is.
For example, look at the jackclee article discussion about some 5 denier scientists. The rebuttal to that was in the form of numeric comparisons. "What if 100 cardiologists... or so it's 5 against 97%, or..."
Don't those all seem to be, (at least on the surface) as direct numeric comparisons? Can that 97% be proven to be a numeric fact?
You say: If most folks, and most folks repeating the claim, don't know where that 97% claim came from, if they don't know who the "they" is, then aren't they accepting it on belief - because it is written, (or spoken)?
Response: Exactly, and this is why I say do not trust the opinion of people who are not experts in the field and the 97% claim is being used by people who do not understand it and yes, it's politicized which is why I tell you not to believe that and look at the public stats yourself, there are a lot of links that I added here with the data.
From Jacks article the 5 do not deny it, I also responded to that. The person who wrote the article does not understand what they are saying because they use fluid dynamic terminology. There is just one guy who denies it, but he denies that we are making a huge impact, he does not deny our impact.
Cooks claim is an actual headcount of scientists who work with climate. So, yes, 97% of the papers studied by Cook did say climate change was mainly mad made and he came up with this number not based on the number of papers reviewed, but the number of lead authors that are for and against it. The public can believe this number, but the credentials of those 3 % who do not believe in it are unknown, maybe the are pointed out in Cooks original paper, if you can source that I can check it out. But I could study just 20 papers and say 97% agree, so don't use this as your base. See what the experts say, the experts hired by the UN and every nation separately has come to this same conclusion and most countries do not want this to be the conclusion.
You're going to have to clarify what you mean by this: Don't those all seem to be, (at least on the surface) as direct numeric comparisons? Can that 97% be proven to be a numeric fact?
Brandon, one of us is being a bit dense - relative to the point of discussion. I know that due to my lack of in-depth understanding it could easily be me, but I think it is you.
Your responses all seem to be in defense of the truth of climate change, and the validity of that truth, or the fallacies or non-validity of the denier's contentions.
My question was about neither of those. I am still looking for the basis and origin of the 97% claim. Once I determine that to my satisfaction, then I will be able to form an opinion about the validity of the claim - as it is being used.
I think your response is a good example of my question. My question amounts to a question of representation of a count or an actual numeric count. I say that the public perception of that claim is that it is an actual count of all scientists.
In your response you say it is both: "Cooks claim is an actual headcount of scientists who work with climate. " Then you say; "So, yes, 97% of the papers studied by Cook..."
Are there no unpublished scientists? Do you think that the public--and many that use the claim--understand that it only refers to published scientists?
My contention is that they do not know this. I am contending that the majority of the public takes that claim at face value - to mean that 97% of all scientists agree with AGW. And as such, I believe they are basing decisions on a misleading "fact."
So, am I being dense and picky for questioning the use of the claim when it is only a partial truth - as I believe it is perceived by the general public?
Of course, knowledgeable folks understand what that 97% refers to, and sure, folks should do a little work themselves to understand what they are accepting, but I think we both know that latter point is not a common occurrence.
Would you deny that the majority of folks, (even intelligent folks), that hear that claim on the evening news probably automatically assume it represents all scientists? Do you deny that it really only represents a percentage of published scientists? Are those two the same?
Which brings me back to my original question: Who is "they?" I think looking at Cook's study might answer that, and if it does, then it sure seems the common public understanding of that claim promotes a false impression.
For clarification, I meant the "numeric" to be a reference to a representation of all scientists, not all scientist's studies.
"Do you deny that it really only represents a percentage of published scientists?"
Yes, I do. Show me the publications that prove otherwise using data and not opinion. Even if one out of a million denies it, it's still going to be only a percentage that agree. So asking me if I deny or accept is illogical. As already said, there's a near 100% consensus on the issue. It does not matter whether the public thinks its 97% or 99% because even if it were 80% it would be huge. The public are not being misled. They want to know if it's true or not and that number gives them this answer. If they want to know more that data is readily available.
"They" refers to: the people who have published papers on climate change and only those who are in the field and submit good research will be peer-reviewed and accepted.
Somewhat related to this conversation: When you work on science the public opinion is not taken into consideration, that's what marketing is for. The public do not understand what 10g of sugar per 100g means. They need it mentioned in teaspoons and they believe food producers are cheating them by only mentioning it in grams. You cannot expect everything to stoop down to such low standards, it will only further promote the dumbing down of society.
BTW I don't think either of us is being dense. I answer the questions that I interpret from what you've written.
P.S: No there are no unpublished scientists. You cannot be a scientist and have no publications. A scientist usually has at least a Ph.D and to get your Ph.D degree you need to have multiple submissions.
The definition of the word says it constitutes research and no research is valid until it is peer-reviewed and published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
Brandon, I must be doing a poor job of explaining what I mean. Your latest response has further confused me.
Now I am not only thinking I am the dense one, (even with your offered escape clause), I feel I am bordering on just being obstinate.
But ... and you better grab a drink and snack, this will probably be a lengthy reply.
Next, just to stir your competitive juices, I have the advantage because I am speaking only from a gut perspective and am relying on Google searches to help me decide if I am right or wrong, you, on the other hand, seem to have a set and firm view of the "rightness" of your opinion, so as such, are shackled by the need to validate your perspective.
Also, I will further shackle you by reaffirming that my point is not directly tied to the validity of the AGW argument because I am only searching for the source of a fact, (the 97% claim), not the validity of the claim, (yet). So your responses won't be bolstered by confirmation of AGW facts.
First point: You say you cannot be a scientist, (let us accept that the rest of the conversation will equate that "scientist" with "climate scientist"), without having a Masters or PHD and being published in a peer-reviewed environment
I say that is wrong--mostly, but will allow that we have not defined what you are ascribing as qualifications to be a scientist. I think that technically you could qualify as a scientist right out of high school, as long as you meet the criteria of the "Scientific Method" in your efforts. But, on a more realistic scale of what is required to be viewed as a legitimate climate scientist, I stumbled across this blurb from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Michigan State University]
Degree Level: Bachelor's degree for entry-level jobs; master's or PhD for research and teaching positions
Degree Field: Climatology/meteorology or atmospheric science with a concentration in climatology
Experience: Number of years and type of experience varies with job position
Key Skills: Strong skills in science, writing, critical thinking, speaking, complex problem solving, knowledge of scientific software used to analyze data, software for graphics and map creation, spreadsheet and word processing software
Salary (2014): The median salary for atmospheric and space scientists was $87,980 in 2014
I checked more than a few sources and I am comfortable with a conclusion that one does not have to be published to legitimately claim the title of climate scientist. So I disagree with your point. It seems it is very reasonable and realistic to be a legitimate scientist without ever being published.
Obviously, that comes with the caveat that of course one's authority, standing, and credibility are enhanced by being published, but it doesn't appear to be a prerequisite to owning the title of scientist.
It appears to me that there can be unpublished climate scientists, and by extension, they may also be included in that 97% perception of the public.
Now here is a part that confuses me. From our conversation, it seemed agreed that the Cook study was a study of published scientists and that his 97% determination was specifically related to the scientist's studies that he, (Cook), studied.
Yet you deny that:
""Do you deny that it really only represents a percentage of published scientists?"
Yes, I do. Show me the publications that prove otherwise using data and not opinion. "
Your "Yes I do..." answered the question, but I included what followed in order to ask; "Why?" The point isn't about the validity of any of the publications, but only that the percentage was based on publications. What did I misunderstand?
We can quibble about what really qualifies one to own the title of scientists, but I think that you will only find your opinion as support for your published Phd minimum. Life experience and multiple other sources say otherwise.
But that also bears on my original question; If your logic holds, and it is only published scientists that make up that 97%, how many other legitimate non-published Phd scientists are not being considered?
No matter how it sorts out, it seems to come down to this:
There are "X' number of scientists involved in the AGW debate.
There are "Y" number of scientists that are published.
It "appears" that the origin of the 97% claim may come from Cook's study.
Cook's study was of published scientists only.
My point is that "X' is greater than "Y," and that the claim as presented to a non-scientific populace misleads them to believe the claim encompasses the larger "X" when it really only includes the smaller set of "Y."
"97% of Scientists Agree That AGW is Real!"
"97% of Published Scientists Agree That AGW is Real!"
Are the two headlines the same Brandon? Are they both true? If they are not both true how can they convey the same message?
Wait! Remember your shackles. You don't need to offer support for the AGW cause. It isn't the point of my comment. You don't need to challenge the credentials of any studies or publications. They aren't germane to the point of discussion.
I am just looking for the source of the 97%, and as I believe I may have found it, I am just pointing out that the 97% claim is a misleading one, and as such, it is also a dishonest one because it seems probable that the ones making the claim know that their audience will equate it to "X" when it is truthfully a statement of "Y."
From the same page where you have got your stats: Those with a PhD have the additional option of teaching and doing independent research at colleges and universities. A master's degree in a non-research job may also contribute to higher pay and more opportunities for advancement.
So only PhDs can do research. Now look at the first sentence in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist) for what constitutes a scientist: A scientist is someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest. Therefore, all scientists are published.
As you see from the above, I was right. There are no competitive juices when you know that you are right, there's no opinion that I have to prove right. The facts are already crystal clear.
How would you argue with someone claiming the Earth is flat no matter what? I argue the same way with people claiming something as simple as AGW is not a reality. I know, I know I escaped my shackles. But since I was not scrambling to work with my "set and firm view of the 'rightness' of my opinion", it was pretty easy.
For the rest of your question, I think you now have your answer about the 97% claim.
In my previous responses, even though you did not ask about AGW, there are other forum dwellers, just like you were who are reading this stuff. So it was necessary to point some things out regarding the dreaded AGW even when that is not what you specifically asked for because you aren't the only one reading it and if I didn't specify some stuff, there are others who would use that to twist my words and I'm sure you've seen that happen already.
Twisted words in a political forum, oh no, say it ain't true.
"So only PhDs can do research. " Really?
I did read your link and I did read that first sentence. But I am anxious to hear you support that only PhDs can do research. Do you really stand-by that statement Brandon?
Of course, a PhD can afford a scientist the luxury of a pure research position, (*that was the point of the blurb you drew it from, in your words - "an additional option), but that is an asset, not a requirement. A high school student can do research. How in the world can you support that PhD requirement? There certainly wasn't anything in your Wikipedia link that supported it.
And if I have found the origin of that 97% claim, it is 97% of published scientists, not 97% of all scientists ... right?
As a side note: Escaping those shackles? "How would you argue with someone claiming the Earth is flat no matter what? ... "...people claiming something as simple as AGW is not a reality. " That doesn't look like an escape to me. It looks like an affirmation of a set and firm opinion.
A high school student won't get hired to do research. You said you only have Google and that I would know better. So I showed you the definition of what a scientist is. Only PhDs are allowed to do research. It also says so in your own reference.
Brandon, your scientist definition did not say a scientist must have a Ph.D., and the information in my link did not say non-PhD scientists were not allowed to do research. It only noted that a Ph.D. was needed to secure a research position.
It clearly said an entry-level position could be had by a scientist with a BA. Your contention means that entry-level scientist is not really a scientist. I don't think that is right.
I disagree with your contention that a Ph.D. is required to do research, but since I have the good fortune to be only a couple minutes away from Salisbury University, I will ask the horse itself and get back to you later today.
Funny you should say that Brandon. A phone and email query went unanswered for about six hours so I did drive to the campus, (I grew-up partying at the campus when I was a High School teenager and Salisbury University was Salisbury Teachers College).
I did start at the "Help Desk," but was able to argue my way to the first available "official" which was the Dean of Admissions office. From there my contact was, of course, a student intern who proceeded to try to connect me with their Henson School of Science dean. Lo and behold the intern actually reached the professor of the Biological Science department.
I was handed the phone. Explained my purpose for the call, and posed two questions.
Can one be legitimately recognized as a scientist with just a BS degree, and, can one legitimately claim to be a scientist without being published?
Her answer to both was yes. But, to your credit, she emphasized that even though entry-level scientists are real scientists, to gain credibility in the field usually did require a Ph.D. and having peer-reviewed published articles. She qualified that with it being a career progression. You can be an unpublished, non-Ph.D. scientist for your whole career if you want, but to gain stature, career advancement, and financial advancement you must attain at least a Masters, (preferably a Ph.D.), and get published.
I think we can both claim a piece of success. For my part, both Google and a university Science department head say you can be a legitimate scientist with just a BS degree. But to your point, both also agree that to advance in a scientific field, and gain authority and credibility, a Ph.D. and published papers are a requirement.
I will take my little piece of success and reaffirm my original thought that the Cook study scientists do not represent ALL scientists.
Now tell me, how long did it take to compose that story, and you were chuckling the whole time, weren't you? ;-)
"Don't presume I am speaking as a denier, or that I am just being picky. I think it is important that such a powerful and frequently referenced point should be understood for what it really says, not just what the public perception is."
A passenger on the Titanic marches up to the captain mid-evacuation and says, "you said this boat is sinking at an angle of 10 degrees!"
"Yes, but try to stay calm and get to the lifeboats", the captain replies.
He turns to the second officer, barks some orders. The officer looks panic-stricken. A tap on the shoulder from the captain. Reassurance. He collects himself and walks away with a sense of urgency.
"Your first officer said we're sinking at 9.97 degrees", the passenger continues. "Which is it?"
The captain looks bemused. Screams are heard in the background. A gunshot sounds from the direction of the starboard lifeboats. "Murdoch go and see what the hell is going on there, then report back to me!" the captain yells.
The passenger persists, "well is it, 9.97 degrees or 10 degrees?"
The captains attention snaps back. Is this person still here? And is that a martini glass he's holding? Exasperated, the captain finally says, "I don't know, but the ship is definitely sinking, and people are going to die".
"Yes, but 9.97 degrees is not 10 degrees is it" the passenger says matter of factly.
The captain forces himself to stay calm. "It's not, but either way, the ship is sinking and we really need to concentrate on the evacuation".
"Oh I don't dispute that we're sinking", the passenger says, "and I'm not being picky. It's just that 9.97 degrees is not 10 degrees. Do you see?"
"I do", says the captain changing tack, "thank you very much for pointing that out". He gently ushers the passenger away, "now if you'll just make your way to the lifeboats we'll . . .
"I mean this sort of thing is very important you know", the passenger says turning back to the captain.
Ushering the passenger away more forcely, "yes that's right, very important. Now off you go".
The passenger slowly walks away mumbling something about public perception.
The captain stands there incredulous. He can't believe he just had that conversation in the middle of all . . . this. Did he imagine it? They say stress does strange things to people's minds. His reverie is broken by the sound of screaming from the lower decks. Maybe they should have unlocked the doors to stowage class sooner. Too late to worry about that now. Where the hell has Murdoch got to?
No one knows for certain what became of the passenger. Legend has it that a passenger was seen on the aft of the ship as she went down, apparently trying to measure something. Some survivors swear that amid the sound of twisting metal, and the screams and cries of the poor unfortunate souls who went down with the ship, they heard another faint cry . . .
"It was 10.3 degrees captain, not 9.97 or 10 degrees, but 10.3 These things are very impo . . . "
I am a bit surprised it took you so long to jump in Don. I thought there was ample fodder to attract your attention much earlier.
The scenario of your "story" was enjoyably cute. It carried just the right amount of identifiers; 9.97 vs. 10 degrees, the martini. I enjoyed your story. (seriously, not sarcastically)
I will be the first to say this thread of exchanges does appear to be just as you described--a petty argument between 9.97 or 10 degrees, when regardless of which is true the disaster is still upon us.
I will also admit that in view of a portrayal such as yours my obstinance does seem a petty distinction. But ... I think the "but" is an important point.
My point is that a scientist can be a legitimate scientist without a Ph.D., or being published. Brandon contests that.
The only reason I think that distinction is important is that it affects the determination of the value of Cook's survey.
Does Cook's survey encompass all scientists or just published scientists? Does the public perception of the 97% perceive it to reference all scientists or just published scientists?
Does that even matter? Maybe it does. What if the published percentage of all scientists is only 50%? Then that 97% claim only applies to 50% of scientists. Do you suppose the public would factor that in when they heard the claim?
Yes, whether it is 9.97% or 10% the ship is still sinking and AGW is still real, but isn't honest representation still important? If it is 9.97% I probably have time to finish my martini, but if it's 10% I better toss it down and run for the lifeboats.
I think that possible misrepresentation harms the message, regardless of whether it changes the message.
What if I am right. What if, (as a stretch), Cook's study only really represents 50% of scientists. Can you imagine the legitimate fuel that would give to AGW deniers?
Ok, let's say it was 97% of published scientists. What makes you think that Cook read through thousands and thousands of papers? It is 97% of what he read. It could very well be 10% of the published scientists.
If that is a valid point, then look what it does to the meaning of the public declarations, (and these forum ones also), that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is real?
I don't have a problem believing that man is a cause of the increase in greenhouse gases, which means that I don't have a problem believing in Anthropogenic Global Warming - in general. But I do have a problem with misleading presentations of facts.
This one has worn me out. Let's talk about cupcakes next. I think they are better when lightly iced, vs. ones that are more icing than cupcake.
Na. I just think you're making something very simple extraordinarily complicated. You can take just about anything even cupcakes and have a complicated conversation
You are right bud. For instance, your "Na" should have an "h," 'Nah'
As for that 'other' thing ...
"97% of all scientists agree that AGW is real."
"97% of 4000 published AGW studies state AGW is real.
"97% of 12,000 published Global Warming studies say Global Warming is real."
"77% of 31,000, (31,000 is a SkepticalScience.com guesstimate), non-published climate scientists agree AGW is real."
Four statements saying four different things. Which one isn't true?
These are four statements saying the same thing.
"97% of all scientists agree that AGW is real."
"97% of 4000 published AGW studies state AGW is real."
"97% of 12,000 published Global Warming studies say Global Warming is real."
"77% of 31,000, (31,000 is a SkepticalScience.com guesstimate), non-published climate scientists agree AGW is real."
Well, since you put it that way, you are right. I should have been more clear with my question.
"Four statements saying four completely different things"
Which one isn't completely true?"
A middle school level statistics course will help answer that.
Help me out then Brandon, I see the question as asking about factual content.
My lack of a middle school level statistics course shows because I don't see a statistical comparison or evaluation component to the question.
I thought it just required an evaluation of the sentences' content.
Will you explain how and why statistics are pertinent to the question? Just the Cliff notes level would be fine, I promise to pay attention.
As a side note, if your snarkiness was brought on by a perceived snarkiness in any of my comments, then I must apologize for being unclear. I don't remember any intentional snarkiness in my exchanges. (before this one of course)
Already been explained if you go through the past comments.
I did go back and look Brandon, and you are mostly right. Your explanations did lead to an understanding that "97% of 4000 published AGW studies state AGW is real" is true, as well as "97% of 12,000 published Global Warming studies say Global Warming is real." is true.
SkepticalScience.com, ( a site you cite as being authoritative) supports that last sentence, "77% of 31,000, (31,000 is a SkepticalScience.com guesstimate), non-published climate scientists agree AGW is real" as being true also.
A couple of your comments also proclaimed that first sentence, "97% of all scientists agree that AGW is real" was not true. (which is what I also said)
Maybe you can see why I am still puzzled about that "A middle school level statistics course" comment. It just doesn't seem to apply - relative to the determination of the truthfulness of those 4 statements.
But I have been left puzzled before, and I don't think there is a shred of skin left on this horse, so back to that more important cupcake icing question. ;-)
No, I never said skepticalscience is a trustable resource. But they are better than many others out there.
If your speedometer says you are driving at 80 kmph that could mean you were going at:
Having more points in there with a higher level of accuracy does not change the fact that the average or the actual value is 80mph which is a good enough estimate for the need.
In the same way ... is a middle school level statistics question. What is the degree of accuracy that you need? Can the speedometer measure every second or do you need it to measure every millisecond?
Cupcakes with icing are a lot more complicated than this. Let's not get cake on our face.
I tried to let this one go Brandon, but the condescension in your referral to a need for a middle school level statistics course triggered my stubborn bone.
Two of those four statements, (2nd & 3rd) had nothing to do with a statistical analysis such as your speedometer example illustrated. The 97% was not challenged.
The 97% in the first sentence was only challenged because it was applied to ALL scientists - which your statements, and, even if it is only viewed as more trustworthy than most, Skepticalscience.com also challenged.
As for the statistical analysis part, if there is any credibility to the site's numbers regarding their non-published climate scientists poll - 20 pts.is not a statistically irrelevant difference - as is your implication in the speedometer illustration.
And... even if that wasn't considered at all, there is still the fact that the 97%, (if the origin can be credited to the Cook study), was applicable to published studies - not ALL scientists. Where would a statistical analysis be needed when the claimed, (my claim), error was mislabelling?
It seems to me that you are so determined to defend the 97%, (or its statistical equivalents), that you addressed what you expected the statements to say - instead of what they actually did say.
Nope, like I said, the 97% claim is also bogus because it's more like 100%. And the 31,000 thing was open online for anyone to vote, bots could do it too. You, Jack and Mike could vote in it as well. There was no way to verify credentials. Also, the example I provided is just what it is. Basic statistics. If it triggers you so be it, this is not a place for smileys. If that helps I can add a smiley to the end of my message
How are ya GA? Still fighting the good fight I see.
I think this is the first time I've seen you frustrated in these forums. I'm often tempted to jump in, but I have to restrain myself or else I'll quickly become like the guy in the following comic:
For what it's worth, as someone who took a few university-level statistics courses once upon a time, I agree with you that evaluating the above statements does not require an understanding of statistics, even at a middle-school level (I had no idea that they taught statistics that early). You could say that the four statements describe 4 different samples from 4 different populations - that's a basic statistical understanding, but the bottom line is that those 4 statements do not say the same thing. That's a conclusion that can be reached using common sense i.e. all scientists != 12,000 GW studies.
I don't know why Brandon thinks his statistics example is relevant to your question. A more analogous scenario is if a speedometer were to be advertised as making a measurement once per nanosecond, when in reality it only measured once per second. Even if one thinks measuring every second is good enough, it should be apparent how misrepresenting the strength of that claim can raise eyebrows, at the very least.
I'm sure none of the above is news to you. But hopefully I was able to restore some of your sanity. If not, how about going for one of those lightly-iced cupcakes? I hear they're pretty good.
Well for one because Cook did not study all the published papers, for another that 31k study was bogus and bots could vote. For another, yes I studied statistics in mid school along with profit and loss. Probability theory in lower secondary school.
It is simple statistics to understand that different samples give different results, but when you see a common trend among samples it is clear that they all point in the same direction. Thanks for clarifying my point that this is, in fact, basic statistics.
You are still missing it Brandon. There was no contention about the "results," and there was no contention that they were not different samples.
Without any contention in those two aspects, why would a statistical evaluation be germane to the discussion?
The "wrong" that I protested--the untruth, that I proclaimed was misleading, was the claim that it was "... of ALL scientists."
I feel confident that my other three statements, (which I noted as true), supported my position. Just as I feel that your own quoted comments supported my position.
The origin of the claim was not ALL scientists. It was ALL studies studied. And the truth of the claim is not "ALL scientists," it is all published scientists that had their studies reviewed.
Hell, that 77% of 31,000 non-published scientists doesn't even need to be in the conversation. Regardless of whether you consider them actual scientists, or not because they hadn't published, or were bots, or were Jack, Mike, or I.
Just consider this; If the two statements about the 4000 and 12000 studies studied are true, then how can you dispute that the "ALL scientists" claim is at the least misleading, and at the worst untrue?
Unfortunately for me, my forehead is bloodied enough, I am going the Forest Gump route on this one.
I never disagreed. This is what I am trying to say the entire time. They are not all studies and how far in history do you go to pick studies? How far did Cook go? But, based on the statistics of the papers out there, it is safe to say that whatever the case is for or against AGW we know that one of them has a near 100% backing.
P.S No I am not arguing for AGW with you because as you said that was not your point of discussion, but I am pointing out that it is not misleading. There are no studies in the world that study ALL the experts in a field. If you know of any study in any field, it would be great to know. So in your logic, no studies ever done in the world are accurate and they are all scientifically misleading.
The problem is that one of the samples pointing in that direction is false or does not exist.
- 97% of scientists agree that AGW is real FALSE
- 97% of 4000 published AGW studies state AGW is real TRUE
- 97% of 12,000 published Global Warming studies say Global Warming is real TRUE
Recognizing that fact has very little to do with statistics. If you don't believe me, try it with these statements:
- 97% of Nobel Laureates agree that AGW is real
- 97% of left-handed people agree that AGW is real
- 97% of extra-terrestrials agree that AGW is real
The point is to support your claims with evidence that actually exists. You don't necessarily need statistics to recognize which claims are true and which are false.
What I find interesting is what you said in a previous post:
GA is essentially advocating to not equate scientists with climate scientists or GW studies. Why you are now having so much trouble agreeing with this notion is puzzling.
I am not having trouble agreeing with that notion. I am reiterating that. He finally agreed about the 31k study which was bogus. But the others I have explained my point on that and how in his logic every other study in the world is also misleading to the public, because in no case 100% of all the experts in the world were surveyed. So there is nothing in the world that the public who do not understand facts should believe.
P.S: facts were provided, GA is not against the facts, it's just the 97% thing which is causing the confusion.
... almost out... almost made it ...
"...in his logic every other study in the world is also misleading to the public, because in no case 100% of all the experts in the world were surveyed."
No Brandon, that is not my logic. As you invited me to go back and review your responses, I invite you to do the same for mine.
Relative to "studies," my comments were very specific; 4000 & 12000 studies. Those same comments also did not contest the use of "97%"
My point was that the statement; "97% of scientists agree," as used, and promoted as validation, is misleading,
That same explanation illustrates why I was puzzled that you attributed what you see as my error to a lack of statistics training. The contention was with the application of facts.
You certainly have helped lower my frustration level mrpopo.
In truth, I have never had any level statistics education. But I was flustered that what seemed to me to be such a clear misapplication was unclear to someone whose knowledge on the subject I accepted as being far greater than mine.
And your cartoon, that was spot on. Regardless of what it says about me, Thanks for the chuckle.
Do you know what the funny thing is? This article that they linked to, there are 5 experts who disagree (according to the article), but read the write-up and if you understand climate science you will see that 4 of the 5 believe in man-made climate change they just don't believe in the way we are going about it. One guy suggests going Nuclear which I agree with, another says we need better input for better models, which is also obvious.
Those who disagree (from this article) only disagree with the way the common man is dealing with it. Nothing more. We all know how public opinion is important for universities and political parties. So, due to the public not liking them, they were forced to resign.
I read this link and immediately noticed the same thing. As someone who dedicated years of my life to weather and climate, it's excruciating to read about the climate conspiracy, and read how the theories of those who have no background in the field.
I think I know how a serious mechanic feels when a customers tells him they know all there is to know about their car. So many people dedicate their lives to a science only to have HVAC technicians tell them they're all wrong or it's a conspiracy. Those HVAC techs have no clue how much those scientists live and breathe for finding the truth.
Exactly. The real conspiracy is how many people so quickly believe outlier opinions about something and how gullible people are. Everyone who is arguing about the "hoax" in this forum probably bought the Pizzagate conspiracy or believes Alex Jones when he says that Sandy Hook was a "hoax". That's the real conspiracy. The idea that climate change is some kind of "hoax" is really just another Pizzagate.
Like I've said before, the doctor tells you you have gallstones. Do you go home, search the internet, and find your symptoms listed under headache and just take a couple of aspirin? Do these people believe their doctors or do they go to some kook in some alley for their medical advice?
They put their faith in charlatans and are forced to look elsewhere when they find their idol challenged by the truth. Sad but true..
Indulge in essential oils. They cure everything. An onion in your socks at night will further help treat the disease.
Leave my onions alone! I started putting half a cut red onion, (it must be a red onion, yellow or sweet onions won't work), in my socks twenty years ago, and to this day I have never had a gallstone problem!
Yup. They seek out the conspiracies and yell at others "Wake up" as though they now have a mainline to the mysterious truths of all the universe. Science and reason will not go away though.
I call this the bell curve of life (the normal distribution on an intellectual level considering IQ the way it currently is defined. You have to have some that cannot fathom science in general, they have other skills and that's how it should be. Everyone must not be a master of science. We need art too, for example.
But the problem is when these artists think they are masters of science.
Very true. I also knew an outstanding biology geneticist who was difficult to get along with, for me anyway, because the guy couldn't figure out how to do something like plumb a new kitchen sink. He couldn't stand admitting that this kind of thing baffled him. His hot water always dripped into the cabinet underneath, you could never use the spray nozzle, and his drain pipe wouldn't even stay together. But, he'd rather that than admit defeat and call a plumber.
We all have our talents, and some of us must work harder to understand certain things than other things. I'm not sure humans, as a whole, were ready for the internet. Now, everyone knows everything about everything.
It is not the same between Nobel scientists and crackpot in their basement...like the flat earth society.
You are too quick to judge...
There are legitimate concerns about the current climate science community.
Do you believe science of any form can be a consensus?
What about the scientific method, long established as the way to prove a theory?
Where is the proof of man caused glogbal warming?
The proof is in the links I attached already. There is only one other guy who knows climate and weather on these forums (studied it as a part of their job) and that is hard sun. You are the one who does not know what you are talking about. You are too quick to judge. You cherry pick what you want, read the reports I sent you. Unless reading is something you cannot do because it is difficult to understand complex climate science? It's not. The reports are made for the lay man.
Just wanted to add some details. No intention of defending the science of climate change to any climate change deniers. It's not even climate change denial, it's science denial. I have no interest in it, like I have no interest in debating science with people who believe the earth is flat.
That is a common argument Al Gore uses about climate deniers. Compare to the flat earth society.
The problem is not the deniers but the skeptics like me. Yes, I believe the climate is warming. My skepticism is what is causing the warming and to what extent humans are responsible?
You will do your self a favor by reading my article. If you still hold the same opinion, fine, at least you have been exposed to the other side of the argument. The science is not settled.
The other common argument is 97% of scientists agree with global warming...
Unfortunately, also false. Science is not a consensus.
"Science is not a consensus."
According to you, Jack? What sort of climate studies degrees are you proud you achieved during your educational endeavors?
I don’t have a degree in climate science. I am self taught because I have a brain and I have what is called the scientific method in my DNA. I approach each problem with the same sketicism. My instincts are better than most. I am not alone. There are many scientists and meteorologist that agree with me...
Who is likely to be a more reliable source of information about climate change, every national academy of sciences on the planet, or you? No offense, but the answer is not you.
And there is a difference between healthy skepticism, and an absurd denial of science and reality. There is no reasonable doubt that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon. The question is settled to the extent any scientific question can be.
So I have no interest in your article Jack, just as I would have no interest in an article claiming the earth is flat.
I am working on my PhD in fluid and climate modeling. A few months ago I gave Jack a very detailed reply, he ignored it and asked some other unrelated questions. He thinks he is smart and that he knows how to do his research because he says he has research capabilities in his DNA - he's a joke, always was if you see his posts on these forums.
If he is so smart, he would be able to understand the simple difference between climate and weather and the differences that go into modeling them and the reason why different models have different outcomes, but in statistical terms have the very same outcome.
I am well versed in computer simulations. I know enough about climate models that it can be tweaked to give almost any desired outcome. Based on some artbitary parameters and assumptions, a small change can grow to a large error with time. Yes, I don’t trust climate models and believe they are incomplete. They are biased toward CO2 concentration. When other factors are considered, CO2 is just one of many components.
Weather and climate are two different animal. I never doubted it. It is the general public that confuses the two...
Everytime there is a heat wave, people will drag up golbsl warming...
No. You do not know enough about climate models.
The small change is not growing into a large error with time. It's not an error, it's all within range of the two-point statistics of the variance. The error does not grow with time, it just deviates based on the initial conditions. It's no exponential increase of sorts.
As an engineer, you need to use the right terms for these things.
I do agree with you that the climate models are incomplete. The reasons for them being incomplete are stated in my previous reply. But, at the same time, they are very complete in the sense that they are pointing in the right direction. If the model says the Earth is going to warm by 1.5 - 2 degrees on average due to man-made issues, you can rest assured that it is, in fact, going to change within +- 0.1 - 0.2 of this range.
C02 is definitely one of the many components and on it's own it is not the most intensive greenhouse gas. But it is also the one that is up there in the highest relative increase in concentration since the industrial revolution because we have taken millions of years of sediment (crude oil) and thrown it up in the air forming a layer of dust (analogy to sediment which is usually considered to be dust) that traps the heat within its blanket.
It is wrong to bring in the topic of global warming for every heat wave. But, look into the statistics and you will see that natural calamities to do with the climate are happening on a larger scale than ever before since man was a hunter and gatherer.
If you really want to understand this and don't just want to bring it up because of some liberal vs conservative issue, check out this page, it explains it very well: https://skepticalscience.com/global-war … ediate.htm
Excellent job, sir.
Climate change skepticism isn't so far from Holocaust denial. Ooh, I know better. The Holocaust didn't really happen. Plenty of people say so.
Or vaccination skepticism. Ooh, vaccinations are a "hoax" and cause problems for people. Don't get vaccinated. I know better!
There are plenty of people who believe the earth is flat. There are plenty of people who believe the sun revolves around the earth (1 in 4 Americans, apparently). Just because there are people who support these positions doesn't make it proof that they are right. Is Michelle Obama really a man? People believe it. Doesn't make it true.
Yes. All of these people are those who read an article and think they are experts on the topic because they understand the gist of the vocabulary used.
They do not know the number of hours of research and study that goes into actually understanding the ins and outs of a topic.
The good thing though is that Jack the OP has no more unanswered questions regarding climate change. He says he's been to many talks and or conferences (not sure what word he used) and the speakers couldn't answer his questions.
Don, you are free to do as you please. Just let me know if you plan to give up plane travel...
There won't be any hydrogen or electric powered planes in the future, Jack? Gee, you know the future, as well as, everything else! You're just like Trump, be proud....of something.
Not anytime soon. We are stuck with fossil fuel for at least the next 100 years...
As we've gone from the model T and the wright brothers to triple trailer trucks and high speed electric cars, as well as the space shuttle and jetliners longer than their first flight, that's not something I could agree to. Couple that with the ever increasing rate of technology rise and I'd almost guarantee there WILL be alternative methods of driving flight (there is already an electric plane that flew around the world. Nonstop as I recall).
But those are experimental planes. I am talking about commercial travel.
How are you going to fly without jet fuel?
Our commerce will come to a stop.
The attack on fossil fuel is self defeating, don’t you understand?
We need it and our world runs on fossil fuel, coal, oil and natural gas. Without it, we might as well go back to the stone ages.
As advanced as solar and wind power, and nuclear, it accounts for only 5% of our total power needs. Where are you going to get that?
Star Trek zirconian crystals is fantasy...
"Jet fuel" is simply kerosene as you may know, Jack. Kerosene has been used for more than a century for lanterns and heating. Simply because YOU can't conceive of anything changing doesn't mean it's right.
Put a tiny fusion reactor and generator in it and turn electric turbofans with the power.
Build a "shipstone" (sci-fi superbattery) and do the same thing.
The point is that just in my lifetime I've seen unbelievable technological advances in both transportation and electronics. What will come about in the next 100 years is beyond my imagination. Antigravity. Superbatteries capable of heating water to steam and push a vehicle into orbit.
If we don't quit burning fossil fuels for energy we're going to regret it. There are far more valuable things to do with them than go from here to there or light a lamp.
Just let me know when you stop believing you understand climate science better than the majority of the world's climatologists. Facts matter Jack. They really do.
They do to me as well.
I am trained as an engineer and the problem with climate change science is that it is a theory that cannot be validated until 30 years from now.
I'm a farmer, Jack. I've spent over 50 years studying weather patterns for my livelihood. Does this make me just as knowledgeable as you?
Randy, there is a difference between weather and climate.
According to NASA, "The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time."
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa … ather.html
No way Randy, this makes you more knowledgeable than him and it's very apparent from the way you speak. You have both knowledge and understanding to use that knowledge. Don't underestimate yourself.
If you want to put it in such simple terms, I'm game.
If by some chance the majority of the world's climatologists and climate scientists are wrong, and anthropogenic global warming is not real, the consequence in 30 years is that we would have taken actions to reduce global temperatures (which also improve the quality of air and water) without needing to.
If anthropogenic global warming is real, then the consequences are potentially catastrophic.
The cost of doing nothing therefore outweighs the cost of doing something. So we should do something.
"In fact, in 2014 – a year that was touted as being “the hottest ever” in the Earth’s history – there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe."
"On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked."
"More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe."
"Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity."
http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-3 … jdRTGVgu7c
Have no idea who these people are, and not inclined to research their statements. But there it is; not everyone accepts the politics of anthropomorphic warming, or even global warming at all.
"not everyone accepts the politics of anthropomorphic warming"
Yes, and not everyone accepts the earth is round
Doesn't mean we should take such absurd denials seriously.
This is a cute response but no one is claiming the equivalent to flat earth...there are legitimate questions about the theory and why the models are off.
If you have legitimate questions that you say climate experts could not answer. Ask them to me. I will get you answers. But you're going to have to promise the people here on HP that once the questions have been answered you will not start another thread on the same topic in 2 months from now with the same stupid questions.
No question is stupid but asking the same thing time and time again is.
No need to repeat them here. My questions are in my hub on this topic. Scroll down to the bottom of the article where I summarize some of the talks I attended at the Lamont Dogherty Earth Observatory...they study climate change there, it is a campus of Columbia University...
Here is my hub- just add http in front...
I'm not going to read that hub. You will only use it to say that it is your most viewed hub. If you truly want to learn something, you will post your questions here for all in this discussion to see without going to your hub. Your hub is not a peer-reviewed paper that you refer to, sorry.
Global warming means that the statistical average temperature of the globe increases. It does not mean that the polar caps are going to lose all their ice.
The winters are going to get stronger and the summers more intense as well. Global warming would result in extreme climate phenomena as the Earth tries to move towards a new stable condition where the poles and the equator are at equilibrium (this is how it is on Venus). But this equilibrium will only be brought about under super drastic conditions and we are not heading there. But, that's the direction the Earth would try to go.
Yes, the solar cycles obviously have a big role to play because all the energy trapped within our atmosphere comes from the sun. We trap more now due to the greenhouse gases, but if more is coming in, we obviously retain more - that's what John Casey revealed. It's no secret.
Also, there was no survey that says 97% of the worlds scientists agree because they were not asked. I was not asked and I work with climate science. Also, would you ask your dentist for his opinion on your heart? No, then why does the common man say "scientists agree" or disagree.
It needs to be climate experts, fluid dynamists and others who work in this line. There are some PhDs in literature who say climate change is bogus and people cite them as experts. Can a discussion be dumber than that?
It depends how extreme you want to do this. You say there is no harm. But to people in the third world, it may be life and death...
"It depends how extreme you want to do this. You say there is no harm. But to people in the third world, it may be life and death..."
The potential destructive consequences of doing something, are outweighed by the potential destructive consequences of doing nothing.
So if you doubt anthropogenic global warming, the rational choice would be to advocate action, because whether the science is right or wrong, that would bring about the least destructive outcome.
"The cost of doing nothing therefore outweighs the cost of doing something. So we should do something."
You left out the "if" part. IF it is true then the cost of doing nothing outweighs the cost of doing something (and IF our efforts are successful, of course). And IF it is not true (or IF our efforts produce no real effect) the cost of doing something far outweighs the cost of doing nothing.
I hear this argument quite often from believers. "Well, IF you are wrong you will be in hell forever. It outweighs a lifetime (the only one you will ever have) of servitude to the church".
Nope, in that you are 100% wrong. It is not a theory, it is a statistical simulation based on the input we have today. How accurately the input is measured and how well we know how things work together affects the result. One wrong move can alter the outcome, but, the alteration is still an overall rise in temperatures. The only difference is where and how it will affect the world.
You only have to wait 30 years if you are slow at understanding basic physics and statistics. These are not theories, they are statistical facts.
If it is so accurate, why wait 30 years? How convenient.
If you are so positive about your projections, it should be accurate next year and next 5 years...
See this is where you are so wrong. So so wrong. I wish I could talk to you and explain some stuff because you seem like someone who talks a lot and influences many around you. Let me try to explain:
For a model that is built today to be accurate in 5 years from now, everything that happens in those 5 years needs to be as they are today. If you are farting one time a day with 5 mg of methane, you need to fart at the same time and the same place and in the same amount for the model to be precise.
But we know that is not going to happen, that is why the models do not consider you as an individual, instead they consider say, your city as an average - the statistical number of farts or emissions in all forms. The statistical amount of CO2 that the ocean would absorb, the statistical number of trees and new leaves and bushes that would grow, etc.
But.... the amount of CO2 the ocean absorbs is directly dependant on the temperature. But the temperature is directly dependant on the amount of CO2 and other green house gases such as H20 and methane in the atmosphere which are directly dependant on the amount of fossil fules being burt, the amount of rain forests being replaced by palm oil, the amount of water being redirected from rivers to avocado platnations in Chile, the number of airport strikes that prevent 1000s of airplanes from flying, the number of oil spills and forest fires, the number of volcanoes erupting, the natural cycles of the sun, the effects of the el ninos, the draining of swamp land in Bangaladesh that results in massive amounts of CO2 entering the atmosphere and a lot lot more.
So unless you can give me a precise second to second predictions of all this, I cannot give you a precise outcome for 5 years into the future.
But, I can look at all this and make up statistical averages in the rate of forest recovery in India and China and counter it with the destruction of the Amazon, and the Indonesian rainforests, I can look into the amount of concrete cover in upcoming cities while taking account the rate of afforestation in the Green belt of Africa, I can consider the amount of desertification in the Thar desert and account for the slow down in the progress of the Gobi and a lot more. You get the picture.
So using all this and statistics as a tool, I can come up with correlations and variances and put these things into my well-built model and give you an outcome. No models are not built to show negative effects. That is the outcome of the current situation.
So the next time you fart, remember that you're a part of the butterfly effect that prevents a climate model from being precise 30 years into the future, but at the same time breathe in a breath of fresh air and realize that they are accurate statistical outcomes of the future.
This is the first time I explained climate science as farts, but it is in fact very accurate and the best way to show someone the influence of an individual on a global scale. The statistics of an individual human, an individual tree collectively form the statistics of the global environment we live in.
If you've got any other questions, do let me know and I'll be happy to clarify as I get the time.
Your answer proves my point. You have no good model thst can predict anything useful... it is like the butterfly effect...one flap here creates a storm 1000 miles away...
Oh my gosh. If you are an engineer, I hope you are a computer science engineer. Anything else and you are a disaster waiting to happen. There are no lives at stake if you work at a computer.
You do not understand science, you do not understand mathematics and you don't want to learn. It's as simple as that. You got a good and detailed answer, yet again, and as always you choose to ignore it. Congrats on being a literate uneducated citizen of the world.
You're wasting your time, Brandon. Jack thinks he's the resident genius. Nuff sed!
You are the one brain washed. I have a master degree in Computer science from NYU and I have a bachelor degree in electrical engineering. I worked at IBM in the Research division for 28 years...
And I am well versed in simulation and computer technology, image processing and and hardware design. I was one of a small team that designed one of the first VLSI microprocessors...
What is your expertise may I ask?
I design wind turbine blades and work with fluid flow and climate turbulence modelling.
As I guessed you are a computer science engineer. It's like a homeopathic doctor talking about brain surgery. Understanding how simulations work in general is pointless. You need to understand how specific simulations work. You definitely don't. I'm not brainwashed because I have the raw data and process it myself. Do you?
So let me ask you a simple question.
With all the studies by scientists in their expert fields over the past several decades, how come they cannot predict accurately the next volcano erruption or earthquake? Remember these are local events that cover 1 mountain or one fault?
And yet, climate scientists claim they can predict a global event, which is much more complex than a volcano or an earthquake which are well understood, in the next 30 years?
Does this make any sense? Genius?
Yes it does make sense. The time scales of weather are much shorter than climate. The time scales of tectonic movement is far larger than this. Earthquakes and volcanoes are also statistical just that it's on a different time scale.
As a learned engineer who studies stuff a lot I am surprised you have not understood a simple concept as time scales.
I do understand time scale that is why you and others are all wet if you think you can predict climate 30 years down the road, when you can’t even predict what is going to happen next week or next month?
Just for an example, go and look up Krakatoa erruption. It happened a long time ago. After its erruption, the earth went into a 3 year cooling due to the soot that traveled around the globe. Some parts of Europe did not even have a summer season. So, if another Krakatoa happens tomorrow, how would your climate model change?
Wow do you know how dumb these questions and assumptions are? A super volcano like krakatova does not have to fit into a 30 year climate model because it's chances of occurrence are near 0 percent. You say you understand statistics and time scales I'm sorry to say this but you do not.
If another Krakatova happens or a Yellowstone happens we won't be discussing climate change anymore because the planet would come to a halt.
What next? What if planet nibaru collides into Earth?
I was just pointing out you stupid assumption about climate models? The model is INCOMPLETE....
It is biased towards the greenhouse effect and does not acccount for a dozen other natural cycles such as the solar sunspots...
It's futile to argue with Jack, Brando. He doesn't need any facts to claim he's right. Never has...
You can dismiss me all you like...come back in 5 or 10 years and tell me who was right all along...I am very patient.
In 10 years it will be that estimates were off slightly or perhaps discover an arithmetic error and it will be another 30 years until Armageddon. So we have to cover the landscape with windmills NOW (in 10 years) to save the world.
Your patience isn't the problem, Jack. It's you believe you know more than those whose life work deals with climate change. Would you be your own attorney if you were criminally charged? If not, why?
Barndon, bottom line, the planet won't be destroyed in 12 years as told to us by AOC?
What is the AOC. What do you define as destroyed?
According to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), climate change “will destroy the planet in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue, no matter the cost.”
Say is ain't so!
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir … nt-address
I'm asking you to either validate or invalidate her claim. As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been quoted as saying in numerous media outlets, "climate change will destroy the planet in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue, no matter the cost.”
Based on your knowledge and experience on the topic of climate change, what is your opinion of her statement?.
You are a PhD student, so, is her statement correct?
The green deal has been proposed. It seems many dem's have approved its progressive agenda. Time to put their money where their mouths are. But it into a bill, with a plan of how they intend to pay for it and stand up and vote. hen in 2020 run on it... The people have a right to know what they are fully voting for. This cheap form of politics is disgusting. Sorry for having to be so blunt, but no other word suits my thought.
Jack, have you read some of the proposals in the "Green New Deal?" I did and laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes. I don't know what is funnier, the portion about working with farmers to decrease Methane gas produced by bovine flatulence, cows farting, or providing economic security to those unable or "unwilling" to work. Oh, there is retrofitting every building in the United States was also a good one.
This is just as example of where the Democrat party is right now. This is a proposal written by members of Congress that illustrates just how detached from reality these people have become. They appear to be just children working on a high school fantasy project. Do any of them realize where they are at and what they are doing? It doesn't appear to be the case.
My latest favorite from AOC is how Latinos were descendants of native people. Huh? I suppose her education in history didn't include the portion about the the Spanish Conquistadors and how they wiped out the Myans and Incan civilizations. Must have skipped that little historical detail.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio … tive-to-us
How could a college educated person get to be so ignorant?
My latest favorite from AOC is how Latinos were descendants of native people. Huh?
And obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm willing to listen if you have proof that Latinos descended from native peoples. So, if you can provide proof I will read it. I'll wait. Are you familiar with the historic significance of Spanish Conquistadors? Puerto Rico started as a Spanish colony by Christopher Columbus. There is a reason they speak Portuguese in Brazil. It was discovered by Portuguese diplomat Pedro Álvares Cabral. You do know that Native Americans and the Spanish fought many wars? There are still descendants of the Myans and the Incas, but that varies throughout all of Latin America.
You do realize if you have no proof, you have no reality? Do you have anything to prove what AOC claims?
You cannot cure willful ignorance, IB. Someone who doesn't realize many of the Mexican and South American people have Native American ancestry or are full blooded NA obviously didn't listen in grammar school history class.
Yes, and people who don't have the intelligence to prove their point can't be taken serious and are often thought of as humorous. Yes, historical facts do exist, they are just beyond the scope of those who lack the intellectual tools to seek them out or comprehend them.
And that would be you!
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-o … ican-blood
Check out the 3rd paragraph and I'll send you a serving of crow, Mike. One of your classic errors, but then, there are plenty to choose from.
Randy, Thank you for supplying the link. It only proves my point.
From your link
"Hispanic Americans are a different matter, however. But, their Native ancestry comes from a different history - that is to say, it comes from the Latin American mestizaje. This is part of a different colonial history, which did not exist in north America."
So, Latinos have ancestors from Latin America. That stretches from the tip of South America to the Mexican/USA border. The ancient people in this part of the world were the Aztecs, Myans and Incans. They had very advanced civilizations.
So, you could also look at the many wars the Native American along the Rio Grand fought with the Aztecs.
So, thanks for proving my point. Latino heritage is from South America, Central America and Mexico as well as other places the Spanish Conquistadors ruled.
Have a good day Randy. Nice try.
I went back and checked the link and it had changed since I linked it with another answer to the question.
Here is the 3rd paragraph on the first question:
"Then there is the problem of the South West. Mexicans are primarily Native Americans who speak Spanish due to being forced to learn it by the Spaniards. Now we look at them like they are a different race. They are not. They are simply Native Americans and some have a little Spanish blood thrown in."
Caw!! Still believe many of the Mexicans aren't pure Native Americans? Probably...
And where did you that find most of the SA and Mexican people were murdered by the Spaniards?
Nice try Randy, I do appreciate the effort. As it clearly states, if they are in Mexico, they are Latin American mestizaje. This is not the case in North America. "Mexican people were murdered by the Spaniards?"
I suppose I should say you need a little history lesson on the exploits of the Spanish conquistadors. There were several but Cortez focused on Mexico.
You need to educate yourself. I think you need to do some research on the explorer Cortés, the Aztec leader Montezuma as well as how Mexico City was founded. There is just too much to explain in a single post.
Here is a link provided by a Mexican historian.
http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/1538 … -1519-1521
Here's something that happened in 1521.
“The Aztecs fought valiantly under leadership of the last Aztec emperor, Cuauhtemoc, whose name translates as "falling eagle" or alternately "setting sun." Ravaged by diseases introduced by the Spaniards, deprived of fresh water and food supplies from the mainland, they withstood an 80-day siege, surrendering August 13, 1521, only after their captured leader grasped the dagger in Cortés' belt and pleaded, "I have done all that I could to defend my people. Do with me now what you will.”
The Aztec are now Mexicans in name only. Your repeating there's
Hispanic blood in all Mexicans is totally BS. That goes for the remnants of the once great Aztec, Inca and Mayan civilizations, all Native American as those tribes in the US.
Be wrong, I don't care. I've researched extensively on the subject, especially about the mound builders who came from Mexico and brought corn, beans and squash--"the three sisters" to North America.
But hey, if you do research and come to a different conclusion...
I would suggest climate change fanatics to read up on work Bjorn Lomborg has done, if their motive is truly to make the world a better place.
It's a problem when a discussion becomes so political. People will look only at evidence to support their views or agenda.
I worry at how naive our young people are in this country. It appears they think money grows on trees, every person but them are rolling in money and if everything climate related were done in this bill it will magically change the climate.
Not to mention the bizarre belief that the world will end in 12 years because of global warming.
Truth is, you can't force Americans to find the funds to remodel their homes to make them energy efficient. Most don't have the money for such. I wonder how much pollution would be created by a massive nationwide remodeling project, massive construction for railways and developing technology to plug cow's butts.
Even if America found a way to implement everything in their plan we currently account for just 16% of greenhouse gases. Emerging economies will not participate and cannot be chastised for attempting to grow their economies.
This plan is ridiculous, cannot be implemented and there is no data to support that it would make even a negligible difference in the problem the world faces. The democrats know this and are just pandering for votes by pretending they support it. Not surprising.
There is a reason conservatives are more likely than liberals to deny climate science, just like there is a reason there are more anti-vaxxers among liberals. Sadly, we are beginning to see the consequences of the poor decisions of anti-vaxxers and how their denial of reality affects all of us.
Climate deniers are being led around by the nose by powerful interest groups who value short-term wealth over the health of the planet.
I recall a study that found conservatives are less likely to purchase light bulbs that are labeled "good for the environment." That's just plain stupid.
That's odd (or comical depending on your viewpoint), for I would have said that it is those that accept the concept and the short-term wealth over reason. After all, we all watch as the "green" movement makes billions for companies that return nothing at all. We watch as the VIP's of the movement leave gigantic carbon footprints in their personal lives. We see the dozens of ads promoting home solar cells for "no money down" - because the neighbors will pay that FOR you - and doesn't mention there will be a lien on your home until it's paid. That movement has great political backing, but at the root it is all about money and power, not the well being of the earth or it's people.
As far as light bulbs, perhaps the conservatives are more distrusting of everyday sales tactics designed to sell and nothing more? And that's coming from someone that has only one filament bulb in the house, and that's the one in the oven. Even the refrigerator has LED lights in it - it was a selling point when I bought it, although not for energy savings. And someone that drives a plug in hybrid that goes 3,000 miles on a 10 gallon fill-up...but couldn't get the tax rebate because it is limited to the rich.
So much nonsense in there. Maybe someone will feel like wasting their time on it. I dont.
Full of crap in there. No point explaining when you know the response.
Well, my electric bill rose some $10 per month...because some giant "green" company making solar cells conned the power company (a monopoly as most are, guaranteed a profit) into building a substation and providing power during construction...for a plant that never made a single solar array. Taxes went up, too, to finance the same project.
Have you not gotten the ads for solar cells for your home?
All about money, as I said.
Let me give you one real example of liberal stupidity.
In Seattle, where my in laws live, they passed an ordinance a few years ago that all houses must convert to CFL bulbs to save the environment. After much expense to convert over, now a few years later, LED became a better alternative, less electricity and longer lasting and better for the envionment... too bad they did not waited...
You left out the scare that grew rapidly over mercury in CFL's. It turned a lot of people off of CFL's, and for good reason.
Another uneducated worry.
The amount of mercury in a CFL is very small, only 4-5 milligrams. This is almost one thousand times less than what was in mercury thermometers! ... In short, the exposure from breaking a compact fluorescent bulb is in about the same range as the exposure from eating a can or two of tuna fish
I fully understand that. I even agree with it, with the caveat that destroying thousands of CFL bulbs over a lifetime CAN produce damage (mercury is not secreted from the body).
But the comment was about the fear of mercury. Spread by fear mongers without full knowledge of what they are speaking of.
Makes one consider fear stories of many kinds, doesn't it? When we accept a false story as truth fear becomes the over riding factor. Or even an unproven story with grossly exaggerated projections as a true forecast of the future rather than a distant possibility.
Exactly. So never consider false stories by people who do not work and have experience in a certain field.
No metal is secreted from a body, only organic compounds. Yes, mercury is poisonous, so is arsenic in apple seeds. This is why the proper disposal of CFL bulbs is needed, the same with all electronics and their lead batteries. Also, I didn't say you feared it, just that it was an uneducated fear. The same as the fear by anti vaxxers.
I read that anti vaxxers are mostly liberal and something of that sort. An honest question: Does every single argument land under the liberal/democrat umbrella in the US? This is what it seems like. People, in general, cannot seem to think of every situation on its own and they need to support their team no matter what. I know it's unrelated, but I know you'd be able to give me a good answer to this (hopefully), better than most here, at least.
Whew! I am getting dizzy trying to follow this thread.
So what is the bottom line - is the earth flat, or not? Will Georgia become a beachfront property, (sorry for your loss Randy), or will the Appalachian trail become the new I-95? Are the zombie bacteria just waiting for us to blink, or are we really the masters of the universe? I am so confused.
No need to be confused, everything will be OK...there is no global catastrophe...anything that comes our way, we can mitigate. Humans are resilient and we are adaptable. There are humans living in the arctic and the equator...global warming will be just another challenge...
I now live on what was once a barrier island around 12,000 years ago GA, so I'll have a few extra years to evacuate.
But not to worry because we have our resident self-professed Climate Change expert to keep us informed. But you already knew that , eh?
Self promotion is against forum rules, Jack. You'll have to resort to something much sneakier to get people to read your...….stuff.
I don’t care if people read it. I only post this as it relates to our discussion.
I have published over 600 articles on Hubpages. Do you think I really care if you read one of my articles.
I am well aware of the self promotion aspect of HubPages.
I personally think it is misguided.
If a hub already covers a particular topic of discussion, why not allow it to be posted...it just makes common sense.
The blanket rule of not allowing hub links is just an indicator to me that HubPages has a primitive AI checking system. A more sophisticated system would be able to distingush whether a post is self promotion or not.
"I personally think it is misguided. "
Are you sure? I can't remember the last time I saw a post on the HP facebook page that wasn't pure self promotion and nothing else.
I'd hate to see the forums turn into the same thing, and I'm sure they would.
I know what you are saying but there needs to be some compromise.
Self promotion is one thing but repeating the same arguments should not be encouraged also. In any discussion of a deep nature, invariably, there will be incidence of some related topic that has been explored already possibly in an article. I see no reason why it cannot be shared to make a point. The forums already allow links to other websites...
Sure you care if people read your....stuff, Jack. Otherwise you wouldn't be touting it all the time as a measure of your brilliance. No one wants to read your OPINION instead of facts.
Kind of sad if you ask me..
"No one wants to read your OPINION instead of facts" is hypocrisy another aspect of the English language you seem to lack an understanding?
Watch this. This is why I get so pissed off with people who think science is a debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1MZ8U8C9c8 it's not. What you do with the knowledge and the policies you form, that's debatable.
It shows how uneducated some societies are becoming, societies that were once smart. Right now there's a thread calling the new generation stupid. It's simply hilarious when many in the new generation in some countries that had great pasts are waking up to step back into the shoes of their forefathers and not the immediate ancestors.
GA Anderson, this is a comment from the video above:
This is where the severely misunderstood "97%" argument came from. That stat isn't the number of scientists that believe in man-made climate change. That is based on a meta-analysis of papers studying the climate. They reviewed thousands of papers and found that 97% of them determined that human activity was having a measurable impact on climate change. The other 3% didn't necessarily come to the opposite conclusion. Some simply didn't have the evidence to say that any changes were directly linked to human activities. That is what Neil is talking about. When you have the vast, vast majority of papers reaching the same conclusion then you can say that the theory holds true. This isn't up for debate anymore.
Are you serious? I had to watch this more than once.
Look at the 1:48 of the video. I'm not a scientific expert. I do know history. I assure you that Abraham Lincoln signed NOTHING into law in 1963. So, CNN's fake news continues. Hurricane? Isn't there a difference between weather and climate? Isn't it disingenuous to talk about cherry-picking science and then post an image of a hurricane?
I didn't see anything worth anything except a man who is not a climate scientist trying to sell his book.
You may know science but do you know economics?
There is absolutely NO workable realistic solution to this problem if it were proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt. In order for something to work, ALL the countries would have to be on board with a solution.
Do you really think there is a realistic way to get countries the size of China and India to limit their manufacturing and risk economic collapse? All the science in the world is not going to get them to change.
So, say all you want about climate change. You don't have a realistic solution to the problem.
Yes, China and India are doing faaaar more than the USA. China is leading the green revolution. India is nowhere near the USA in the pollution they let out, the USA per capita is way higher than China and a lot of the stuff manufactured in China goes to the US. This is why your President is so worried about the trade deficit.
I support the Green New Deal even though it's trying too much, because the fact is people like you are gonna be gone and we're going to deal with it. You can take your green dollar bills and keep them in your graves and take them to the afterlife much like the Pharoes of Egypt.
Economics is a man made venture, the planet is not. Without a planet to work with there is no point in economics. Money is nothing when a crisis happens.
Also, if you have the common sense you think you have, you would know it's 1863. Maybe FoxNews would have said it right.
Watch this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffjIyms1BX4
The good thing though is that it's just the USA that has the dumb folk who doubt science, very few in Australia, the rest of the world is in unison. Unfortunately, the USA is the biggest polluter contributing directly + in trade.
Like I said: there's a huge difference between understanding and not doing anything about it. 1 in 4 people in the US don't even understand it.
Btw. how are hurricanes cherry picking? What are the good things that have been happening?
"I support the Green New Deal"
Good luck taking a train to Europe. Did you even read it?
You know science. You don't have a clue about the reality of economics or even world politics.
"Economics is a man made venture, the planet is not. Without a planet to work with there is no point in economics. Money is nothing when a crisis happens."
You need more real-world experience.
I am in Europe.
I watched a video on the Green New Deal, it's got targets it cannot and will not achieve, but it's a step in the right direction: Planning based on facts. Something your government has forgotten to do.
I do know about Politics and how the system is built for lobbyists, this is why the US is crying foul, you have one of the biggest Oil lobbies in the world.
I also know about Economics, not an economist, but I know how the world works. You know just one system that works, this does not translate to: It's the only system that works.
Begin by reading this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07845-5 if you know about economy, you will see how taking away from oil subsidies would free up a lot of cash. But, that's something your current government will never do because ... funding and lobbies. Indonesia has done it.
Also, if you know what's happening around the world. you would know that Inida and China are not the problems. The US and China are major problems, India somewhat, but Nigeria is going to be a huge issue. This is why they need to invest in green technology and not go the fossil fuel route. They are booming and Zambia is not far behind. Right now Sub-Saharan Africa uses less electricity than Alabama. That's going to change fast.
Also, the largest shipping companies in the world are working full time on going green, so are major beer companies such as Heineken and they are still wreaking in profits. Cambodia, Mexico and Brazil are making huge changes and improvements among many others.
Lastly, with the population growing and with projections of reaching 11 billion we're going to need circular economies, because the world is not going to be as it is now with 10% of the world having the most wealth, there's going to be a much larger middle economy and your current economic systems and policies do not support this, in fact they push for a wider gap.
I don't need more real-world experience, you need to be able to think of the world other than yourself. Not just your family, but the next generation.
I know you guys are not young and it's not easy to change your mentality, most of all admit that you've changed your mind on something you've been headstrong about for decades. But that's what you need to do.
Your responses are too much like something you would see in a textbook.
NO...you don't know economics. Believing China and India will work to lower their manufacturing to accommodate for the theory of man made climate change is naive
You may know science, but beyond this discipline, you seem to only know what you've read.
That's not real.
What makes your generation look so unintelligent is you don't know what you don't know. Let that sink in.
Academia is not the real world.
Canda is working on laws to make repairing a thing. They don't want their population to keep buying new things from China just because things cannot be repaired anymore. This is a step towards the cyclic economy, less waste.
Our generation knows what we don't know and we trust experts in their field to do their job, something many in your generation cannot fathom to do because you need to know it all. Just like Jack, you guys are a Jack of all trades and a master of none.
China only produces because the West consumes. So it's not up to China. They are doing their bit to move to cleaner production. Are you doing your bit to cleaner consumption? Of course not.
Both China and India have amazing policies set up and they are working towards their goals. They are still expanding on their carbon footprint in order to give everyone electricity. If you can live without electricity, good for you. But it's a basic human need in this day and age and that's the only reason they still have some coal plants going up. But, the number is massively offset by renewables.
The whole situation in NY with Amazon is funny to watch. Some economists like yourself think Amazon was bringing something to the city. They were only bringing in people with higher wages that would push the locals further out. If that's how an economy works, for the top bracket it needs to change and people are standing up for it. She would not have been voted in otherwise.
Also, as I said, if you knew much about Economy you would know that Africa is the real problem that is waiting to happen.
I'd rather look unintelligent than be unintelligent and selfish. Have you visited India and China in the last 10 years or have you seen documentaries that are not on FoxNews?
क्या आप उनकी नीतियों को जानते हैं?
"China only produces because the West consumes. So it's not up to China. They are doing their bit to move to cleaner production."
You do need to brush up on your economics. These countries have HUGE populations. They need to find jobs for billions of people. If they can't create an economy to support their population, the government could be taken down and the country would then descend into chaos. So, these countries MUST maintain a huge manufacturing industry.
"They were only bringing in people with higher wages that would push the locals further out. If that's how an economy works,"
You need to read more about that deal. Amazon offered to hire most of the workforce from the local economy. New York has the people they need. That was one thing that made New York attractive to them. Getting Amazon to leave was a stupid thing done by stupid people. Again, not something someone done by people who know economics. The New York economy lost a lot of new tax revenue. It was stupid on New York's part.
Yep, been to China and India within the last 10 years. Spoke with lots of people there. Amazing places. Very rich in culture and history. Anybody have a chance to visit there...I recommend it. Went with a couple to India who had never before been out of the United States. They were overwhelmed. Ah, the sights, sounds, smells are all unique. No matter how many things you see in China or India...there is always more to see. I plan on going back.
I don't see the point here. Capitalism does not have to die to have cleaner production and a green economy. Margaret Thatcher should have been alive today, some conservatives would have seen that the two can go hand in hand with some efficient but big changes.
"Capitalism does not have to die to have cleaner production and a green economy"
I have a relative who has a Ph.D in Oceanography. She's a scientist. You are a scientist. The two of you view the world through the eyes of a scientist.
Neither of you are economists. Neither of you have any idea what your statement means.
Here is some reality.
Fossil fuels will be the dominant energy source long after you and I and my cousin have departed this earth. I'm betting that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is wrong and the world will be around beyond the next 12 years.
There is no other source of energy that is as economical or can do what fossil fuels can do. Green energy can't fly passenger and cargo planes and until it can, it's not even worth a consideration. It's a nice little fantasy for people in academia. It's not reality.
Until you can come up with an energy source that people can use as easily and as economically as fossil fuels, nothing will change. You can say anything you want, that is the economic reality of this world.
When you have a business and have to worry about costs, then you may begin to understand.
I do have a side business that I use to provide high paying jobs to local students. We share profits even though I manage it and I started it.
You apparently don't understand the agenda. Use green technology where possible. Planes will still use kerosene and the medical industry will have to continue to use fossil fuels. But you do not need it for your electricity.
Give it up. Anyone under 35 is in a panic mode that precludes thinking beyond 'the sky is falling'
I see. All the old guys in the climate council are going to be blushing when they see how young you've made them.
But your message is right, some conservatives are gonna be conservatives, preserving those brain neurons for a day when they may come to use. So there's no point arguing. Gonna have to give it up.
Keep up with your generalizations! Good job!
Cool, it seems the origin of that "97%" may have been found. That was my question all along Brandon. It was never a question of the legitimacy of the AGW claims.
As for your link: thanks, I am a huge fan of Tyson. Love to hear anything he has to say. Even watched his failed TV show, but... I was never in disagreement with what he said, or the fact that AGW is real. So the video was just a nice evening treat.
No prob. Glad you got your answer. But that 97 percent is still not to be believed.
At some point in time only a handful of people believed in evolution. Today it is probably a 100 percent of the scientists. But if I study papers and consider past publications this number would go down as they didn't have the tools and in this field the right theory to match their findings.
Wait, don't play with me pal. "But that 97 percent is still not to be believed. " Was that sarcasm? I don't do well with detecting sarcasm. It might be the only thing I have in common with Sheldon ;-)
It's not sarcasm, I gave you an example of how things change. That 97% will be closer to 100% if Cook looks only at modern papers.
I can see that, and as soon as I can determine the answer to this Ph.D. question I will come back to the question of whether Cook's claim encompasses ALL scientists.
So far I am only convinced it includes published scientists.
As a side note: In looking at the SU faculty pages I came across SU's Science Dept. publications listing. I did not look at where their list of papers were published, but there were multiple students with published papers. Does that make them scientists?
I was a student with published papers. Yes, that makes them a researcher. A scientist is one that has a PhD and works in research, both your and my link says that. It is very clear in both the links, I am sorry if this is hard for you to comprehend.
And Cooks paper encompasses all scientists because all scientists are published scientists.
Ok bud, Be sorry all you want, but your point is not hard for me to "comprehend." I simply disagree with it, and your self-affirmation.
On your say, all scientists must be published Ph.D.s in order to claim the title of scientists. Multiple Google-supplied sources and my local university Science Dept. head contradict your "say."
I will leave you to your opinion, but put the support of my opinion in their validations.
It seems very clear that one can be a legitimate scientist without a Ph.D. or published papers. That scientist may forever be deemed a lower-level or entry-level scientist, but they will be a scientist none the less.
Even more confusing is "your published papers" statement. As a student, you say you were a "researcher", but as a degreed, (BS), scientist you aren't allowed to be a researcher until you attain a Ph.D.?
I have not been involved in this particular discussion, but this is too funny for me to pass by. Thanks for making me laugh out loud Mike, now I am ready to tackle the work week.
I saw where AOC is changing the pay structure for her staff, from the norm. Paying those less qualified more than the average, taking pay away from the more qualified to accomplish it. Of particular interest is that I saw no mention of her pay going toward correcting 'inequities'.
Socialist control on display. 'Do as I say, but don't make me pay for it'.
Yes, the top pay she will offer is half what she makes. It will be interesting to see if he she follows through with the plan after the top, most experienced, people pack it in and leave for greener pastures.
Think she'll give up her luxury apartment (with no "affordable" units in the complex) and pass on the savings on to her employees? Will she use some of her own (capitalist) salary to put towards her socialist ideals?
Or will she sit back enjoying capitalism while her employees suffer under her application of her own brand of socialism to them?
Her response to that may reiterate a previous comment she made "I'm in control and you are just shouting out from the cheap seats." I think the aura of power has gone to her head. That didn't take long.
No, it didn't take long. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Talking about power going to a politician's head, and not mentioning Trump, brings an Alanis Morissette song to mind..don't ya think
Believe it or not, for some it is possible to have a conversation that does not involve Trump. Not democrats, of course. But some people can.
Ha ha....it's a free ride when you've already paid...figures...just don't think about it and you can keep supporting the guy
Not in your shoes, so can't see from that angle. I think the statement you made is ridiculous, but again, not in your shoes.
My comment wasn't support of Trump just the fact that,for some, life appears to revolve around Trump.
You don't have to be in my shoes. We used to be better than Trump. It's not just Trump...it's the people in a cultural and intellectual crisis, and the climate change conspiracy theories are a symptom of the degradation. Trump just brings it all to the front and piles on the dung as he attacks democracy.
I haven't stated anything about Trump much of anywhere lately.. but if a conversation about the morality of a freshmen Senator can be front and center due to its importance...welp., Trump should be brought up. If you want to call that my life revolving around Trump..then so be it.
I've had, and will have my kicks, there's no doubt of that. Take care.
"Welp" Now that I like. Spoken like a true Eastern Shoreman.
Although I would agree with the criticism of bringing Trump into a non-Trump thread--a la Jake-- your "welp" won me over. I forgive you. ;-)
Ah..and I thought I was dubbed Unforgiven a long time ago. The new life coursing through my veins will only serve to stiffen my anti-Trump stances. That is, after I drink some coffee and get to work.
Truly, I have grown weary of Trump bashing in every unrelated conversation just as I have the Trump circle jerking. This conversation just screamed ..what about Trump?...just as so many seem to scream what about Hillary, or Obama, to Trump supporters.
I think welp is folksy-enough to fit the Hoosier vernacular no matter the term's origins.
Trump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash … se-keeping
Yes. We used to be better than Trump. Let's hope we get back there.
But dismissing criticism, at every turn, simply with a "what about Trump comeback" excuses the behavior of another offending party. It will not do anything in the effort to get back to a 'better' position.
Honestly? At this juncture, AOC is the leftist image of Trump.
Educate yourself: https://www.theguardian.com/environment … nt-volcano
I was wondering about that meme, but didn't have the interest, (or belief), to pursue it.
But your link did prompt a look around, and I found a Forbes article that adds some more details to your Guardian link.
How Much CO2 Does A Single Volcano Emit?
This got me going wow: It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.
One has to wonder how "Additional emissions from tectonic, hydrothermal and inactive volcanic areas contribute an estimated 66 million tons of CO2 per year" while acknowledging that "the total number of emitting, tectonic areas are unknown".
Or for that matter, how "emissions from mid-ocean ridges are estimated to be 97 million tons of CO2 annually" when we haven't even traveled them, let alone the rest of the ocean bottom.
But beyond that, humanity produces about 2.3# of CO2 per day, or 3B tons per year for the species. It also comprises about .027 of the total of animal life (not counting bacteria or other single cell organisms); animal life thus produces 118B tons of CO2 per year (by breathing, using homo sapiens as the benchmark), compared to the 29B we produce by burning. Kind of puts a different picture on man producing most of the CO2 entering the atmosphere.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/200 … eathe.html
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ … imals-pnas
There's something called the carbon cycle and no species on the planet other than humans is doing anything to change this cycle. Read this from the article on slate:
No. Human beings do exhale almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, but the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled” from the atmosphere by the plants we consume. (When we eat meat, we’re still eating the same carbon, except that it passes through livestock on its way into our mouths and out into the atmosphere.) The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels—where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years—and combust it. So breathe easy.
Doesn't really paint a different picture.
I saw that, understand that, and recognize the difference. Although limiting the addition of "sequestered" carbon to other species rather than all sources other than man seems a little disingenuous, especially considering that the topic here is volcanoes.
The fact remains that when you say humanity is producing far more CO2, via the burning of fossil fuels, than all of natural causes combined is patently false. It isn't even close.
We can see this, too, in the percentage of O2 in the atmosphere. Early on it was near o. Then bacteria came along and it rose, followed by plant life and another huge rise. Then animals came into being (think BIG dinosaurs) and it fell drastically to near what it is today, along with the size of animals.
If you want to actually discuss what man is doing to CO2 levels, then, it is likely best to consider what we are adding on a percentage basis. But of course that is very, very low (on the order of 2%) and doesn't have nearly the emotional impact of 29,000,000,000 tons.
The difference is that the volcanoes etc bring up carbon from the mantle. So they are comparable to what man is doing with fossil fuels. The rest of the life forms are not.
Also, it was geological activity that resulted in life and the change in the atmosphere, no doubts there. But geological activity is known to bring stuff up from the depths while geological activity also results in it getting buried.
The change in the atmosphere by life happened over billions of years, not over 200 years. So you begin to see what that 2% is doing.
When you have a balance of scales, that 2% is a massive amount.
"The change in the atmosphere by life happened over billions of years, not over 200 years. So you begin to see what that 2% is doing. "
Actually, no it didn't take billions of years to see a large change in the composition of the atmosphere. Not unless you mean all of the changes in the last 4.5B years lumped into one event.
Not to say it took 200 years either, although some of the massive events in the past might have had that effect and in far less time. We can't tell that close when it comes to the entire atmosphere, although we DO know that there were events that happened in a few hours or days.
"When you have a balance of scales, that 2% is a massive amount."
Certainly no argument there! But, as I said, it simply does not carry the emotional impact of 29,000,000,000 tons. Those zeros carry a lot of weight to the gullible person that isn't going to actually think about what is being said anyway. And it is the emotional impact that counts far more than fact in today's arguments.
by Susie Lehto 3 years ago
"Due to the recent tragedy in SC. People in government are coming together against a flag that has a negative and disgusting past.Native Americans have the same feelings about the American flag.As African Americans feel about the confederate flag."https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti...
by grinnin1 6 years ago
How does a country ever make up for wiping out it's first inhabitants? Inhabitants who loved and revered the land and watched it greedily devoured by invaders?? What is the price America pays for what it did? How can we atone for what we did and why haven't we done more?
by Deforest 3 years ago
http://youtu.be/88k2imkGIFAA vibrant testimony of what the Indians in Canada suffered from the Anglo-Saxon Catholics. In the US, Australia, Canada it seems like the white Anglo-Saxons perpetrated ethnic cleansing with impunity. WrenchBiscuit, I dedicate you this document, as a testimony of the...
by Thomas Byers 6 years ago
What do you think about what has been done to the Native American people?I am of Sioux heritage with some Blackfoot and Irish, thrown in. I didn't grow up on a reservation but visit them often now and work with the poor on the reservations often. I wish more Americans were aware of how very...
by proton66 7 years ago
Do we blame God for the demise of the native Americans or man's fear and cruelty?History has many accounts of human cruelty toward their own kind. Native American, for example, had their land stolen, and African Americans were forced to be slave laborers. Who's hand was it?
by Kathryn L Hill 5 months ago
Since it's beginning, America has been based on, "slavery, white supremacy and oligarchy ..."This understanding is just not true and the majority of the citizenry know it. How any individual or group of individuals think(s) they can get away with such HOGWASH is beyond me!!!!
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|