Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns

[placeholder]

On 8/26/2021 at 11:04 AM, Yellowtail said:

Hilarious. You regurgitate the 97% lie, and when called on it you regurgitate a magazine article that has nothing to do with what you were called out on on, and then when you get called out on the magazine article that you claim you substantiated the 97% lie in an earlier post. 

 

It it just me or is it not ironic that someone clinging to the 97% lie would link to magazine articles about how people cling to their lies..... 

 

 

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

The latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to November 2020 was conducted in two stages. First, the researchers examined a random sample of 3,000 studies, in which they found only found four papers that were sceptical that the climate crisis was caused by humans. Second, they searched the full database of 88,125 studies for keywords linked to climate scepticism such as “natural cycles” and “cosmic rays”, which yielded 28 papers, all published in minor journals.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

The latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to November 2020 was conducted in two stages. First, the researchers examined a random sample of 3,000 studies, in which they found only found four papers that were sceptical that the climate crisis was caused by humans. Second, they searched the full database of 88,125 studies for keywords linked to climate scepticism such as “natural cycles” and “cosmic rays”, which yielded 28 papers, all published in minor journals.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans

And here we are regurgitating the same lie, with "new and improved numbers"

 

It's the same lie. If the left really wanted to be truthful, rather than saying  "99.9% of scientists agree". they  would say: 99.9% of the papers published by leftist academics (redundant)  that depend on the climate-change being a crisis agree. 

 

If the left truly believed it they would not be against nuclear power and fracking. 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

The latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to November 2020 was conducted in two stages. First, the researchers examined a random sample of 3,000 studies, in which they found only found four papers that were sceptical that the climate crisis was caused by humans. Second, they searched the full database of 88,125 studies for keywords linked to climate scepticism such as “natural cycles” and “cosmic rays”, which yielded 28 papers, all published in minor journals.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans

Actually, it's interesting that you provide a link to both the original study and the Guardian's comment on that study.

 

The Guardian is clearly a 'pro-climate-alarmist' newspaper and therefore their reporting is clearly biased. If you read both articles, one a scientific study and the other a reporting of that study by journalists who appear to have no understanding of science, then you might get an insight into what's going on.

 

The essential point to understand is that most scientists are aware that climate change is a non-linear, chaotic system that is impossible to accurately predict. Therefore, most scientists do not respond to questionaires about the role that human CO2 emissions have on climate change, and most scientific studies on climate do not address the role that human activity has on climate.

 

The very high consensus of 97% or 99%, that human caused climate change is a major problem, refers to a significant minority of the papers that are selected. The majority of papers do not take a position on the issue.

 

The attached diagram from the study shows the real percentages. From 2,718 randomly selected papers, a majority of 1860 papers expressed no position.

 

 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Actually, it's interesting that you provide a link to both the original study and the Guardian's comment on that study.

 

The Guardian is clearly a 'pro-climate-alarmist' newspaper and therefore their reporting is clearly biased. If you read both articles, one a scientific study and the other a reporting of that study by journalists who appear to have no understanding of science, then you might get an insight into what's going on.

 

The essential point to understand is that most scientists are aware that climate change is a non-linear, chaotic system that is impossible to accurately predict. Therefore, most scientists do not respond to questionaires about the role that human CO2 emissions have on climate change, and most scientific studies on climate do not address the role that human activity has on climate.

 

The very high consensus of 97% or 99%, that human caused climate change is a major problem, refers to a significant minority of the papers that are selected. The majority of papers do not take a position on the issue.

 

The attached diagram from the study shows the real percentages. From 2,718 randomly selected papers, a majority of 1860 papers expressed no position.

 

 

The Guardian reports what scientists say on climate change, they don't make the science. If they reported that Russia was going to attack Ukraine (They did) would you also have said that was biased?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Actually, it's interesting that you provide a link to both the original study and the Guardian's comment on that study.

 

The Guardian is clearly a 'pro-climate-alarmist' newspaper and therefore their reporting is clearly biased. If you read both articles, one a scientific study and the other a reporting of that study by journalists who appear to have no understanding of science, then you might get an insight into what's going on.

 

The essential point to understand is that most scientists are aware that climate change is a non-linear, chaotic system that is impossible to accurately predict. Therefore, most scientists do not respond to questionaires about the role that human CO2 emissions have on climate change, and most scientific studies on climate do not address the role that human activity has on climate.

 

The very high consensus of 97% or 99%, that human caused climate change is a major problem, refers to a significant minority of the papers that are selected. The majority of papers do not take a position on the issue.

 

The attached diagram from the study shows the real percentages. From 2,718 randomly selected papers, a majority of 1860 papers expressed no position.

 

 

And if you were to do the same for biology you would find that most papers take no position on the theory of evolution.

That's because it's settled science. There's no significant scientific opposition. Scientific research isn't being done on the theory of intelligent design.

And so on and so forth.

If  anthropogenic climate change were still an issue, there would be significant research being published in  opposition.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And here we are regurgitating the same lie, with "new and improved numbers"

 

It's the same lie. If the left really wanted to be truthful, rather than saying  "99.9% of scientists agree". they  would say: 99.9% of the papers published by leftist academics (redundant)  that depend on the climate-change being a crisis agree. 

 

If the left truly believed it they would not be against nuclear power and fracking. 

Nice try. You think your attempt to to use the phrase "leftist academics" would go unchallenged. So it's your contention that the people doing climatological research use pretty much the same methods as professors of English or historians. There's actually a more precise word than "academics", isn't there. Hmmm....what could it be? How about "scientists"? Maybe we could get even more precise. What's the word for scientists who study climate? That's a tough one.....oh..right. Climatologist.

But please, do share with us the evidence that you must that these climatologists are doing fake research and somehow all supporting each other in some kind of massive conspiracy to perpetrate this fraud. 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

The Guardian reports what scientists say on climate change, they don't make the science. If they reported that Russia was going to attack Ukraine (They did) would you also have said that was biased?

On climate issues the Guardian reports what some scientists say, and those scientists are a minority of scientists who are political activists on the issue of climate change. Whether or not Russia was going to attack Ukraine is not a scientific issue, but a political issue.

 

Were you not able to understand the diagram I attached to my post, showing that a very large majority of the papers that were examined in the study, showed no position?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

On climate issues the Guardian reports what some scientists say, and those scientists are a minority of scientists who are political activists on the issue of climate change. Whether or not Russia was going to attack Ukraine is not a scientific issue, but a political issue.

 

Were you not able to understand the diagram I attached to my post, showing that a very large majority of the papers that were examined in the study, showed no position?

You mean the graphic with no detail and no link?

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

On climate issues the Guardian reports what some scientists say, and those scientists are a minority of scientists who are political activists on the issue of climate change. Whether or not Russia was going to attack Ukraine is not a scientific issue, but a political issue.

 

Were you not able to understand the diagram I attached to my post, showing that a very large majority of the papers that were examined in the study, showed no position?

What don't you understand about the fact the most scientific papers in a particular field have no reason to address what is considered settled science in that field?

[VincentRJ]

56 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And if you were to do the same for biology you would find that most papers take no position on the theory of evolution.

If the issue being investigated is the degree of certainty that biologist have about the theory of evolution, then it would be sensible to select only biology papers that are attempting to investigate the evolutionary process. Most studies of biological issues are not about evolution.

 

"That's because it's settled science. There's no significant scientific opposition. Scientific research isn't being done on the theory of intelligent design."

 

As I've already stated, climate change is a chaotic, non-linear system which is impossible to accurately predict. The IPCC has stated this. The science is definitely not settled. The theory of Intelligent Design (of the universe) is no more than a speculative hypothesis, and is too challenging to investigate scientifically.

 

"If  anthropogenic climate change were still an issue, there would be significant research being published in  opposition."

 

There is, but it rarely gets reported in the biased media, which tends to focus on bad news, such as alarmism about rising CO2 levels.

[ozimoron]

18 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If the issue being investigated is the degree of certainty that biologist have about the theory of evolution, then it would be sensible to select only biology papers that are attempting to investigate the evolutionary process. Most studies of biological issues are not about evolution.

 

"That's because it's settled science. There's no significant scientific opposition. Scientific research isn't being done on the theory of intelligent design."

 

As I've already stated, climate change is a chaotic, non-linear system which is impossible to accurately predict. The IPCC has stated this. The science is definitely not settled. The theory of Intelligent Design (of the universe) is no more than a speculative hypothesis, and is too challenging to investigate scientifically.

 

"If  anthropogenic climate change were still an issue, there would be significant research being published in  opposition."

 

There is, but it rarely gets reported in the biased media, which tends to focus on bad news, such as alarmism about rising CO2 levels.

So, all media that reports that climate change is real and is an emergency is necessarily biased? The real, unbiased news is that CO2 levels, ocean acidity, rising sea levels and melting ice are a crisis. There is NO credible research to the contrary. Want to know why? It would have about as much basis in truth as research into evolutionary theory. Scientists are no longer wondering whether climate change is real or is a problem. They already know the answers. They are focused on how much time we have and how best to deal with it before it's too late. Assuming it isn't already too late and there are plenty of scientists who will tell you that's the case. Climate deniers are like religious zealots, they don't care what the science says.

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If the issue being investigated is the degree of certainty that biologist have about the theory of evolution, then it would be sensible to select only biology papers that are attempting to investigate the evolutionary process. Most studies of biological issues are not about evolution.

 

"That's because it's settled science. There's no significant scientific opposition. Scientific research isn't being done on the theory of intelligent design."

 

As I've already stated, climate change is a chaotic, non-linear system which is impossible to accurately predict. The IPCC has stated this. The science is definitely not settled. The theory of Intelligent Design (of the universe) is no more than a speculative hypothesis, and is too challenging to investigate scientifically.

 

"If  anthropogenic climate change were still an issue, there would be significant research being published in  opposition."

 

There is, but it rarely gets reported in the biased media, which tends to focus on bad news, such as alarmism about rising CO2 levels.

And most studies of climatology are not about the issue of climate change. Which is why only those papers that mentioned the issue or depended on it were cited in the study. 

 

As for "As I've already stated, climate change is a chaotic, non-linear system which is impossible to accurately predict. The IPCC has stated this. The science is definitely not settled

"Wow. You're quoting yourself as an authority. Impressive."

 

"There is, but it rarely gets reported in the biased media, which tends to focus on bad news, such as alarmism about rising CO2 levels."

It's not enough to assert it's being done. Please share them with us. Evidence? As the Cornell study noted, there were only 28 studies they were able to find, and they were all published in minor journals.
 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Nice try. You think your attempt to to use the phrase "leftist academics" would go unchallenged. So it's your contention that the people doing climatological research use pretty much the same methods as professors of English or historians. There's actually a more precise word than "academics", isn't there. Hmmm....what could it be? How about "scientists"? Maybe we could get even more precise. What's the word for scientists who study climate? That's a tough one.....oh..right. Climatologist.

But please, do share with us the evidence that you must that these climatologists are doing fake research and somehow all supporting each other in some kind of massive conspiracy to perpetrate this fraud. 

You do know there are a lot of scientist in academia, yes? But I'll rephrase:

 

And here we are regurgitating the same lie, with "new and improved numbers"

 

It's the same lie as the 97% lie. If the left press really wanted to be truthful, rather than saying  "99.9% of scientists agree". they  would say: 99.9% of the papers published by leftist academics (redundant)  scientists that depend on climate-change being a crisis for funding agree. 

 

If the left truly believed it they would not be against nuclear power and fracking. 

 

Are we in agreement now?

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

You do know there are a lot of scientist in academia, yes? But I'll rephrase:

 

And here we are regurgitating the same lie, with "new and improved numbers"

 

It's the same lie as the 97% lie. If the left press really wanted to be truthful, rather than saying  "99.9% of scientists agree". they  would say: 99.9% of the papers published by leftist academics (redundant)  scientists that depend on climate-change being a crisis for funding agree. 

 

If the left truly believed it they would not be against nuclear power and fracking. 

 

Are we in agreement now?

 

 

 

 

Yes, the press is sloppy. What they should say is 99 plus percent of climate change researchers agree. But why would anyone care what scientists not involved with this research think? Does anyone care what a climatologists thinks about issues in physics? Or in biology?

As for the nonsense about nuclear power and fracking. Nuclear power, for one thing, is very expensive. And as satellite surveys show, natural gas mining releases huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. And the methane that is successfully extracted mostly gets burnt and creates CO2.

What's more storage technologies are making extraordinary progress. And green hydrogen iow costs less than natural gas. And that's before recent developments will make the price drop even further.

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

Yes, the press is sloppy.

Only in one direction