What Climate Wars Did To Science

[baller7345]

I believe this image fits in here.  It pretty much explains my views on the matter of what our impact on climate truly is.

EDIT:

Image didn't size right when attached.  Instead this article from popular science shows the same thing.

Earth Average Temperature Timeline

Edited September 14, 2016 by baller7345

[Gunther]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

And yet you only look at the information you want to be true.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

Hardly.  Let's be fair.  Someone posted the incorrect fact that the polar ice caps were melting or retreating.  I knew this to be inaccurate so I grabbed an article on the topic and posted it. 

[Spanky]

Funny how it seems  98% of the smartest people scientist all agree. The same people that invented today's amazing technologies are just making wild assumptions, yet an unfortunate percentage of people with little or no education knows better.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, baller7345 said:

I believe this image fits in here.  It pretty much explains my views on the matter of what our impact on climate truly is.

EDIT:

Image didn't size right when attached.  Instead this article from popular science shows the same thing.

Earth Average Temperature Timeline

Yeah, that's the same chart I tried to post yesterday, but couldn't get it to embed in here either so most aren't going to look.  The bottom line is that in about 22,000 years, the average earth temperature increased steadily and gradually (with some gradual decreases in there as well) about 4 degrees celcius.  And in the last 100 plus years, it's gone up another 1-ish degree.

Another way to say it would be to say that 20% of the average earth temperature increase in the last 22000 years has occurred in just the last 0.4% of that timeframe.

To look at that chart and those numbers and say "yeah, that's natural" seems insane to me.

[Spanky]

17 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Hardly.  Let's be fair.  Someone posted the incorrect fact that the polar ice caps were melting or retreating.  I knew this to be inaccurate so I grabbed an article on the topic and posted it. 

 

18 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Hardly.  Let's be fair.  Someone posted the incorrect fact that the polar ice caps were melting or retreating.  I knew this to be inaccurate so I grabbed an article on the topic and posted it. 

Nasa's data on many disciplines is a great way to get solid and reliable information such as the last posted. Showing how the net change in both of the polar ice caps as a whole are still melting atypically fast.

2 hours ago, baller7345 said:

I believe this image fits in here.  It pretty much explains my views on the matter of what our impact on climate truly is.

EDIT:

Image didn't size right when attached.  Instead this article from popular science shows the same thing.

Earth Average Temperature Timeline

 

2 hours ago, baller7345 said:

I believe this image fits in here.  It pretty much explains my views on the matter of what our impact on climate truly is.

EDIT:

Image didn't size right when attached.  Instead this article from popular science shows the same thing.

Earth Average Temperature Timeline

 

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Yeah, that's the same chart I tried to post yesterday, but couldn't get it to embed in here either so most aren't going to look.  The bottom line is that in about 22,000 years, the average earth temperature increased steadily and gradually (with some gradual decreases in there as well) about 4 degrees celcius.  And in the last 100 plus years, it's gone up another 1-ish degree.

Another way to say it would be to say that 20% of the average earth temperature increase in the last 22000 years has occurred in just the last 0.4% of that timeframe.

To look at that chart and those numbers and say "yeah, that's natural" seems insane to me.

 

[Spanky]

27 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Yeah, that's the same chart I tried to post yesterday, but couldn't get it to embed in here either so most aren't going to look.  The bottom line is that in about 22,000 years, the average earth temperature increased steadily and gradually (with some gradual decreases in there as well) about 4 degrees celcius.  And in the last 100 plus years, it's gone up another 1-ish degree.

Another way to say it would be to say that 20% of the average earth temperature increase in the last 22000 years has occurred in just the last 0.4% of that timeframe.

To look at that chart and those numbers and say "yeah, that's natural" seems insane to me.

Agreed.

[nevets88]

The way I see it, the oil industry, auto industry, etc... all have a lot deeper pockets to sponsor scientists than the environmental/green industry. So yeah, scientists can be influenced and one side has so much more money to do so.

Here's the XKCD graphic:

[Gunther]

2 hours ago, Spanky said:

Funny how it seems  98% of the smartest people scientist all agree. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#3fea6cb67187

The 97% claim has been debunked.

[Spanky]

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#3fea6cb67187

The 97% claim has been debunked.

LOL...Consider the source.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#3fea6cb67187

The 97% claim has been debunked.

That's not a "debunking," that's an opinion piece by a guy who clearly has an agenda.

"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."

and

"Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need."

[Gunther]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

That's not a "debunking," that's an opinion piece by a guy who clearly has an agenda.

"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."

and

"Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need."

Continue reading, he cites scientists who were involved in the survey indicating the surveyor misapplied their own beliefs.  It was all made-up. 

There are many other stories out there about the methodology used in this survey.  This has been pretty well settled, which is why you don't hear it cited much anymore, except as a throwaway line.   The survey itself is never discussed because it was so flawed (or engineered).  I just grabbed the 1st article that popped up.

[newtogolf]

I thought the general message had changed and that scientists were no longer claiming the planet was warming at an alarming rate but the use of fossil fuels was causing climate changes which is why the term "Global Warming" was replaced with Climate Change".  

[Golfingdad]

18 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Continue reading,

The second quote I posted was the second to last line of the entire piece. ;)

What do you and @newtogolf think about the graph that I tried to post and that Steven added for me?

 

2 hours ago, nevets88 said:

The way I see it, the oil industry, auto industry, etc... all have a lot deeper pockets to sponsor scientists than the environmental/green industry. So yeah, scientists can be influenced and one side has so much more money to do so.

Here's the XKCD graphic:

No opinion, no spin, just a line that changes direction rapidly in the very recent past.

[Spanky]

21 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

The second quote I posted was the second to last line of the entire piece. ;)

What do you and @newtogolf think about the graph that I tried to post and that Steven added for me?

 

No opinion, no spin, just a line that changes direction rapidly in the very recent past.

Some people will disagree regardless of how much proof is presented. Their argument is inherently flawed. 

40 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I thought the general message had changed and that scientists were no longer claiming the planet was warming at an alarming rate but the use of fossil fuels was causing climate changes which is why the term "Global Warming" was replaced with Climate Change".  

To obscure the obvious with minutia does not change the fact.

[newtogolf]

20 minutes ago, Spanky said:

Some people will disagree regardless of how much proof is presented. Their argument is inherently flawed. 

To obscure the obvious with minutia does not change the fact.

Which fact?

That the temperature is increasing? I agree with that, the graphic accurately depicts the temperature increase, even if the numbers are slightly off, the trend is increasing.  

That fossil fuels are the major cause of the temperature increase?  That's where I question it's a fact.  

During the same period that we're seeing temperature increases we experienced population explosions, reduction of rain forests and other forests, severe forest fires and increase in production of fossil fuel emissions.  

I'm fully willing to agree that fossil fuels contributed to the increased temps but I'm not sure what percentage that is and I question the science that can isolate fossil fuel emissions as the major cause.

[Golfingdad]

7 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

That fossil fuels are the major cause of the temperature increase?  That's where I question it's a fact.

Let's switch over to renewable energy and find out.  If it turns out they were wrong, then so what?  The air is still cleaner, and we rely less on importing of oil.

What is the downside?

[Spanky]

14 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Which fact?

That the temperature is increasing? I agree with that, the graphic accurately depicts the temperature increase, even if the numbers are slightly off, the trend is increasing.  

That fossil fuels are the major cause of the temperature increase?  That's where I question it's a fact.  

During the same period that we're seeing temperature increases we experienced population explosions, reduction of rain forests and other forests, severe forest fires and increase in production of fossil fuel emissions.  

I'm fully willing to agree that fossil fuels contributed to the increased temps but I'm not sure what percentage that is and I question the science that can isolate fossil fuel emissions as the major cause.

Multiple ways, at this point it's not even a question of if, it's more how long before it's too late

[Dave2512]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Let's switch over to renewable energy and find out.  If it turns out they were wrong, then so what?  The air is still cleaner, and we rely less on importing of oil.

What is the downside?

I was going to post something similar. The downside is renewable energy doesn't align with certain political beliefs, because for some majorly effed up reason everything has to be split down the middle, left or right by the masses. You can't support it because it's the cause of the enemy and the buy in means accepting a bunch of other shit that shouldn't be attached to it. For change to happen climate change will have to stop being a political battle.