7 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Nice going, attack people that isn't native English speaking for not using correct grammar. You really don't have much good fact to use do you. 

And that number 95 % is just fiction. Do you really there is a study of what all scientists think? 

 

Scientist admits the ‘overwhelming consensus’ on the climate change crisis is ‘manufactured’

 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/

Maybe you are having a problem with math? One scientist makes a claim yet the other 95% disagree.

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Maybe you are having a problem with math? One scientist makes a claim yet the other 95% disagree.

Could you provide a link to that study where all of the worlds scientists has been asked what they think about this please.

1 minute ago, bokningar said:

Could you provide a link to that study where all of the worlds scientists has been asked what they think about this please.

the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

I don't think you believe this is the same thing as really asking every scientist in the world if we have an imminent climate crises now. 

 

Nobody is contesting the fact that human activity increasing the amount of co2 and that is making it warmer. What the cc religion fail to recognize is that there is a lot we don't know. We don't even know how h2o interact with this complex system.

1 minute ago, bokningar said:

I don't think you believe this is the same thing as really asking every scientist in the world if we have an imminent climate crises now. 

 

Nobody is contesting the fact that human activity increasing the amount of co2 and that is making it warmer. What the cc religion fail to recognize is that there is a lot we don't know. We don't even know how h2o interact with this complex system.

I believe the statement made by NASA, here it is again for you, but its ok, I note your reliance on a lone scientist in the New York Post.

 

"the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change."

31 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Nice going, attack people that isn't native English speaking for not using correct grammar. You really don't have much good fact to use do you. 

And that number 95 % is just fiction. Do you really there is a study of what all scientists think? 

 

Scientist admits the ‘overwhelming consensus’ on the climate change crisis is ‘manufactured’

 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/

If you want to post on an English forum, I don't see why you should get an exemption. Please explain why you can't use a grammar and spell checker.

Judith Curry is aligned with climate deniers, downplaying risks and questioning the cost of rectification. One scientist's contrarian opinion.

Another poster has supplied with a link establishing the claim to 95% is valid.

Noted you did not answer my question w.r.to your own qualifications. IME deniers almost never do.

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I believe the statement made by NASA, here it is again for you, but its ok, I note your reliance on a lone scientist in the New York Post.

If you bother to lock at my earlier posts you will see more scientists that I have quoted. And that we are discussing a stochastic system and we can only make educated guesses about the climate. No real scientist claim they know for sure what the climate will be 100 years from now.

9 minutes ago, bokningar said:

I don't think you believe this is the same thing as really asking every scientist in the world if we have an imminent climate crises now. 

 

Nobody is contesting the fact that human activity increasing the amount of co2 and that is making it warmer. What the cc religion fail to recognize is that there is a lot we don't know. We don't even know how h2o interact with this complex system.

A classic example of what-about-ism. Religions are based on belief, climate change is based on fact and science. It's a convenient and dishonest label used by climate deniers.

It's all too hard, let's just stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. News flash - it won't.

4 minutes ago, bokningar said:

If you bother to lock at my earlier posts you will see more scientists that I have quoted. And that we are discussing a stochastic system and we can only make educated guesses about the climate. No real scientist claim they know for sure what the climate will be 100 years from now.

Scientists can make predictions based on current data and trends. While the outcome cannot be predicted precisely, if we keep burning fossil fuels at the rate we do now, any real scientist knows it's going to be hotter. Wanting a precise number is quibbling.

Unless, of course, one of the world leaders gives us a nuclear winter.

7 minutes ago, bokningar said:

If you bother to lock at my earlier posts you will see more scientists that I have quoted. And that we are discussing a stochastic system and we can only make educated guesses about the climate. No real scientist claim they know for sure what the climate will be 100 years from now.

we can only make educated guesses about the climate

 

Educated guesses went out of the window a long time ago, now read the Physical Science.

 

Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

15 minutes ago, bokningar said:

If you bother to lock at my earlier posts you will see more scientists that I have quoted. And that we are discussing a stochastic system and we can only make educated guesses about the climate. No real scientist claim they know for sure what the climate will be 100 years from now.

Expand  

Scientists can make predictions based on current data and trends

 

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Educated guesses went out of the window a long time ago

The IPCC model's has a very broad spectrum of possible outcomes. And since we keep adding around 100 million people to this planet every year and China keeps starting up a new coal power-plant more or less every week. We better hope new understanding of how the climate works will calm down the worst crises ideas.  

2 minutes ago, bokningar said:

 

The IPCC model's has a very broad spectrum of possible outcomes. And since we keep adding around 100 million people to this planet every year and China keeps starting up a new coal power-plant more or less every week. We better hope new understanding of how the climate works will calm down the worst crises ideas.  

Actually the IPCC is based on scientific evidence but then you obviously didn't read it

1 hour ago, bokningar said:

 

The IPCC model's has a very broad spectrum of possible outcomes. And since we keep adding around 100 million people to this planet every year and China keeps starting up a new coal power-plant more or less every week. We better hope new understanding of how the climate works will calm down the worst crises ideas.  

The rate of population growth is questionable, as quite a few countries are actually in population decline. China apparently has overestimated its population to the tune of 600 million people.

During times of conflict, birth rates decrease significantly. That fact is affecting both Russia and Ukraine.

While it may not be part of any scientific climate change model, IMO it's reasonable to predict massive economic refugeeism, very similar to the movements of Americans during the 1930's dust bowl.

Conservative models of the Tibetan glaciers are predicting the water flows from them will be halved by 2050, even assuming no further Chinese dam construction.

That water feeds the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Mekong rivers. One billion people depend on those rivers for water to drink and feed themselves.

A post contravening our Community Standards has been removed.

16 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The rate of population growth is questionable, as quite a few countries are actually in population decline. China apparently has overestimated its population to the tune of 600 million people.

So you believe that China population is only has around 800 million, And that 1.5 degrees higher temperature every one is talking about is a serious crises for the world? 

18 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Actually the IPCC is based on scientific evidence but then you obviously didn't read it

I did read it, and their models give a lot of possible outcomes. Read again. And that the 1.5 degrees higher temperature will create a huge crises if we can't stop it is just another quite questionable number. 

10 minutes ago, bokningar said:

I did read it, and their models give a lot of possible outcomes. Read again. And that the 1.5 degrees higher temperature will create a huge crises if we can't stop it is just another quite questionable number. 

They're all the same outcome. Global temperatures rise, exactly by how much is uncertain but we already know it's too much. Scientists proved it would 150 years ago if we continued to burn fossil fuels..

 

links provided dozens of times.

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Scientists proved it would 150 years ago if we continued to burn fossil fuels

Sorry, don't understand.

6 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Sorry, don't understand.

I think you do, or could do in 3 minutes if you wanted to.

35 minutes ago, bokningar said:

I did read it, and their models give a lot of possible outcomes. Read again. And that the 1.5 degrees higher temperature will create a huge crises if we can't stop it is just another quite questionable number. 

What page section that you downloaded in the pdf's give a lot of different outcomes?

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

What page section that you downloaded in the pdf's give a lot of different outcomes?

They think that because there's a range of different years projected before we are all doomed that the science isn't settled.

On 8/9/2023 at 7:46 PM, bignok said:

Only fools claim science is settled. Science never settles.

How foolish must one be to ignore modern science in the hope that future science might prove their fact-scarce hypothesis accurate?

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

What page section that you downloaded in the pdf's give a lot of different outcomes?

As an example Figure TS.1 if you follow SSP1 it will be around 10 degrees less change in temperature compare to when you follow SSP5 

4 minutes ago, bokningar said:

As an example Figure TS.1 if you follow SSP1 it will be around 10 degrees less change in temperature compare to when you follow SSP5 

Exactly my point proven. What you are saying is that we don't know exactly how many years we have to get climate change under control so the whole theory is suspect.  In philosophy, that kind of argument is called a non sequitur.

2 minutes ago, bokningar said:

As an example Figure TS.1 if you follow SSP1 it will be around 10 degrees less change in temperature compare to when you follow SSP5 

Really? Can you give me the download links for those figures or better still with a screenshot, I presume you have noted their assessment are based on confidence levels, are both those predictions in the high confidence bracket?

5 minutes ago, bokningar said:

So you didn't bother to read it before you posted the link?

 

You're equating very ancient times and periods of thousands of years with the last 100 years and can't see the problem there. Furthermore, we do know that global warming is a direct product of carbon dioxide levels and those levels haven't been this high since God created Adam.

Edited August 13, 20232 yr by ozimoron

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

With over 8,000 pages do you have a memory of each one? Have you read over 8,000 pages? No of course not so enough of the nonsense.

 

So please explain this graphic to put it in context as without a link to the text its impossible to debate it.

It is from the IPCC report YOU gave the link to. And I told you it is Figure TS 1 . And now you want me to explain it for you??

5 minutes ago, bokningar said:

It is from the IPCC report YOU gave the link to. And I told you it is Figure TS 1 . And now you want me to explain it for you??

No please don't bother to explain it, just provide the link to that particular report or download pdf, the link I gave you is to the full report, that full report has hundreds of sub links, one of which you screen grabbed. 

 

While I wait here's a summary:

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, bokningar said:

It is from the IPCC report YOU gave the link to. And I told you it is Figure TS 1 . And now you want me to explain it for you??

These guys don't understand science.

Just now, bignok said:

These guys don't understand science.

So tell me, what is it I don't understand about science that makes you make such a false statement?