Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying

[anotherneil]

Habibullo Abdussamatov - DSc & professor (Russian Academy of Sciences)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey @anotherneil , I have a bridge to sell. It is in great condition but I am getting too old to take in all of the tolls every day. Are you interested?

 

[anotherneil]

Jan Veizer - PhD & professor (University of Ottawa)

 

[SkepticThinker]

So this is just a spam thread?

 

[anotherneil]

Here are a few other presentations showing what scientists actually have to say about human-caused climate change:


Nils-Axel Mörner - PhD & professor (Stockholm University)

Joe Bastardi - meteorologist (Pennsylvania State University)

David Keith - PhD & professor (Harvard University)

Fred Singer - PhD & professor (University of Virginia)

 

[anotherneil]

So this is just a spam thread?

No, there is a reason & motivation for this thread.

I'm in the process of showing something that I was asked to show on a different thread; the topic of this other thread is political, but I didn't want to "show it" on the same thread, so I created a separate thread.

What I'm doing is in anticipation that if I just show what only a few scientists are actually saying, the result would be responses from naysayers claiming that I'm only showing some insignificant cherry-picked counter-examples that don't amount to anything. In order to overcome this, I don't see how I can get around it other than to provide a large enough sampling of what I was asked to show.

What I'm trying to show includes examples of many scientists who are saying things about human-caused climate change that aren't being presented by the mainstream media, celebrities, politicians, climate activists, etc. I'm doing it this way so everyone can see for themselves that it is not me just making some claim about what scientists are saying (which is easy to dismiss), it's the actual names and credentials of scientists, along with video footage proof that it is indeed them that people can see and hear for themselves, and it is them actually discussing human-caused climate change (which is not easy to dismiss - to put it mildly).

Unfortunately it puts me in a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation for those who may possibly be set in their ways and not open at all to the idea that what they were told about there being scientific consensus regarding human-cause climate change, and/or inviting suggestions that this may be a "spam thread."

Do you have a better suggestion on how to tackle this? If so, I would appreciate it if you'd share it with me.

Oh, and before I forget, here's the post on the other thread that I'm referring to: How climate change alarmism laws are unconstitutional

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I'm doing it this way so everyone can see for themselves that it is not me just making some claim about what scientists are saying (which is easy to dismiss), it's the actual names and credentials of scientists, along with video footage proof that it is indeed them that people can see and hear for themselves, and it is them actually discussing human-caused climate change (which is not easy to dismiss - to put it mildly)..

Youtube is full of conspiracy theories..
There are around a billion videos on youtube, so it's not hard to find more or less anything you want.

You need to show why climate-change does not occur due to the ever-increasing consumption
of fossil fuels, and not just post youtube videos.

 

[anotherneil]

Youtube is full of conspiracy theories..
There are around a billion videos on youtube, so it's not hard to find more or less anything you want.

You need to show why climate-change does not occur due to the ever-increasing consumption
of fossil fuels, and not just post youtube videos.

I'm not posting Youtube videos of "conspiracy theories" or of random & irrelevant content. I'm posting Youtube videos of credentialed scientists who have received their degrees from, or how are professors at, accredited universities in scientifically relevant fields that make them subject matter experts on human-caused climate change.

Why would I need to show why climate-change does not occur due to ever-increasing consumption of hydrocarbons? I don't even use the phrase "fossil fuels", since "hydrocarbons" is more objective and inclusive of substances that are burned and release greenhouse gases.

I hold the position that consumption of hydrocarbons does have an effect on the climate & I've never posted anything to the contrary to this; if you believe that I have, then please point out where you think I did - please call me out on it.

The only discrepancy between what I have posted and what you seem to be insinuating to be my position, that I notice from this, is that I do not hold the position that climate change did not begin until the consumption of hydrocarbons; in other words, I hold the position that the climate was changing long before humans existed, and that the climate has been changing ever since Earth developed an atmosphere.

Anyhow, this thread isn't about me; I don't matter. This thread is about what scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Youtube is full of conspiracy theories..
There are around a billion videos on youtube, so it's not hard to find more or less anything you want.

You need to show why climate-change does not occur due to the ever-increasing consumption
of fossil fuels, and not just post youtube videos.

What I get from your post is that if some make the claim that people are heating the world too much, then they don't need any proof amd that it's everyone else's responsibility to look for evidence to disprove it.

If believing that is your choice then I wish you all the best.

 

[metis]

Do scientists agree on climate change?​

Yes, 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.
READ MORE

• Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
• “The scientific consensus on climate change,” N. Oreskes, Science, Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686, doi: 10.1126/science.1103618 (2004).
• “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” J. Cook et al., Environ. Res. Lett., 8 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (2013).-- Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science

If you can get 97% of scientists to agree on something, that's as much of a slam-dunk you'll likely get on anything.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why would I need to show why climate-change does not occur due to ever-increasing consumption of hydrocarbons?

..because you appear to be denying the consequences of human-caused climate-change, as if
it is irrelevant.
i.e. the decrease in the use of fossil fuels will not make any difference to climate

I hold the position that consumption of hydrocarbons does have an effect on the climate & I've never posted anything to the contrary to this;

OK..

The only discrepancy between what I have posted and what you seem to be insinuating to be my position, that I notice from this, is that I do not hold the position that climate change did not begin until the consumption of hydrocarbons; in other words, I hold the position that the climate was changing long before humans existed, and that the climate has been changing ever since Earth developed an atmosphere.

We know that mankind is not the only factor involved .. it's all about significance.
..and you seem to be claiming that it is NOT significant.

This thread is about what scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change.

Ummm .. not really .. you are merely picking a few videos that you like the look of.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What I get from your post is that if some make the claim that people are heating the world too much, then they don't need any proof..

It's not just about "heating the world" ..
It's about living in a finite world, where mankind selfishly pollutes, and grab's the lion's share
of global resources .. and wastes them for their amusement.

Are you claiming that the world is not finite, and whatever we do will be "fixed" like
waving a magic wand?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, there is a reason & motivation for this thread.

I'm in the process of showing something that I was asked to show on a different thread; the topic of this other thread is political, but I didn't want to "show it" on the same thread, so I created a separate thread.

What I'm doing is in anticipation that if I just show what only a few scientists are actually saying, the result would be responses from naysayers claiming that I'm only showing some insignificant cherry-picked counter-examples that don't amount to anything. In order to overcome this, I don't see how I can get around it other than to provide a large enough sampling of what I was asked to show.

What I'm trying to show includes examples of many scientists who are saying things about human-caused climate change that aren't being presented by the mainstream media, celebrities, politicians, climate activists, etc. I'm doing it this way so everyone can see for themselves that it is not me just making some claim about what scientists are saying (which is easy to dismiss), it's the actual names and credentials of scientists, along with video footage proof that it is indeed them that people can see and hear for themselves, and it is them actually discussing human-caused climate change (which is not easy to dismiss - to put it mildly).

Unfortunately it puts me in a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation for those who may possibly be set in their ways and not open at all to the idea that what they were told about there being scientific consensus regarding human-cause climate change, and/or inviting suggestions that this may be a "spam thread."

Do you have a better suggestion on how to tackle this? If so, I would appreciate it if you'd share it with me.

Oh, and before I forget, here's the post on the other thread that I'm referring to: How climate change alarmism laws are unconstitutional

Yes I do. Instead of posting the opinions of various individuals, post evidence. The evidence is the only thing that matters here. Not random individuals' opinions that they share on the internet. Any scientists worth his salt knows that making YouTube videos isn't doing proper science. Rather, carrying out studies and publishing results for peer review in scientific journals where they can openly viewed, criticized, replicated, etc. by their scientific peers is how proper science is done.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It's not just about "heating the world" ..
It's about living in a finite world, where mankind selfishly pollutes, and grab's the lion's share
of global resources .. and wastes them for their amusement.

Are you claiming that the world is not finite, and whatever we do will be "fixed" like
waving a magic wand?

Interesting thoughts, thanks for coming back to me!

So your interest is not primarily "climate change" aka "global warming", but more specifically the interaction of humankind w/ our planet (correct me if I'm overspeaking here). First, please understand that I am not making any claims about whether the world is finite or not. Instead I care about your thoughts because I'm learning.

You said "mankind selfishly pollutes, and grab's the lion's share of global resources .. and wastes them for their amusement" and I'm not seeing that so please help me understand where ur coming from. Could you please give me an example of a natural resource that's being used up to the point of shortages? Another thought, are you aware that most new wealth in the U.S. (maybe the world for that matter) is information? Personally I see a lot of room for increasing wealth creation if it's information.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..So your interest is not primarily "climate change" aka "global warming", but more specifically the interaction of humankind w/ our planet (correct me if I'm overspeaking here)..

They are intertwined .. if global economics was not based on usury, then we would not
see the ever-increasing consumption of fossil fuels, and global growth would be more consistent.

..You said "mankind selfishly pollutes, and grab's the lion's share of global resources .. and wastes them for their amusement" and I'm not seeing that so please help me understand where ur coming from..

Perhaps you don't really think about it..
Did you not know that:-
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth.
- Wikipedia -

That's not good .. not only does it result in poverty and mass migration, but it increases enmity, and
climate-change.
The migration seems to be towards the colder climes, which increases the need for energy consumption.

Could you please give me an example of a natural resource that's being used up to the point of shortages?

What has it got to do with current shortages?
Do you not care what the next generation will have to deal with??

..but I would agree that we will be forced to change our lifestyles, as energy prices increase
significantly .. but under the current system, some people will suffer more than others.
..nothing new there then .. except the scale of it !

 

[anotherneil]

Anastasios Tsonis - PhD & professor (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)

 

[Pete in Panama]

...Could you please give me an example of a natural resource that's being used up to the point of shortages?...

What has it got to do with current shortages?
Do you not care what the next generation will have to deal with??

Off hand that kind of sounds like you and I can agree that after many thousands of years of enjoying natural resources humanity still has yet to run into any shortages. I also understand that you predict shortages as early as one generation in the future, say two or three decades. I don't, but what I see is that it's hard to prove it either way.

...Another thought, are you aware that most new wealth in the U.S. (maybe the world for that matter) is information? Personally I see a lot of room for increasing wealth creation if it's information.

Do you have any problems w/ wealth creation from producing information?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you have any problems w/ wealth creation from producing information?

I don't have any problem with "wealth creation" that doesn't involve usurious financial
transactions, period.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't, but what I see is that it's hard to prove it either way..

..it depends which nation you "sit in" ..
I'm sure Saudi knows how much oil reserves they have left, for example .. but they are not likely
to be telling us (true, accurate figures)..

..and it stands to reason, that if you consume ever-increasing quantities of a finite supply, it will
soon become scarce.
..never mind the damage to the finite environment.

I wonder how much oil reserves remain in the Americas..

 

[Pete in Panama]

I don't have any problem with "wealth creation" that doesn't involve usurious financial
transactions, period.

huh, your concern is not with any wealth creation --be it from using natural resources nor expanding information-- but your conflict is w/ "usurious financial transactions", Sounds like you oppose charging interest for loans and you're ok w/ exploiting natural resources.

For me that's a digression WAY off topic.