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

[anotherneil]

Here are a couple more scientists on the issue:


Ole Humlum - PhD & professor (University of Oslo & University Centre in Svalbard)

Syun-Ichi Akasofu - PhD & professor (University of Alaska Fairbanks)

 

[Yerda]

Well I don't matter, anyways. This thread isn't for an interview with me; it's for showing what the scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change. Which presentations have you viewed so far & what are your thoughts on them? Do you have any of your own to provide?

A selection of YouTube videos of scientists (not all of them qualified) among thousands isn't a survery of "what the scientists are actually saying". A much better tool there would be something like a meta review of the literature.

Let's pretend that you're just a bit dim (you seem rather clever to me) rather than deceptive and have a look at what you've posted on just the first page of this thread.

Patrick Moore. Not a climate scientist but in fact a consultant for lobbyists.

Ivae Giaver - not a climate scientist and advisor to the Heartland Institute - a propagandist for tobacco and oil companies, specialising in falsifying controversy.

William Happer - not a climate scientist, was hilarioulsy outed by pranksters as a fraud:

"December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer declined a fee for his work, calling it a "labor of love", but said that they could donate to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by the Greenpeace sting operation. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under U.S. law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal."

William Happer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Freeman Dyson - not a climate scientist.

This is what you deem to be "what the scientists are actually saying"? You're absolutely transparent, son.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I think it's fair to say that whatever harmful consequences there are from the heating we have experienced, they are fairly moderate when compared to the consequences we risk from heating in excess of 2 degrees.



We can't be 100% certain about anything - the sun might blink out tomorrow and we all freeze to death on snowball earth. We can say that we have good reason to be confident about some predictions though.

The only rational approach is to consider costs vs benefits and take a risk management approach based on the most rigorous empirical findings we can get our hands on.

We pretty much have agreement that the earth will continue to rotate and the sun will come up over the horizon tomorrow. The reason we can have confidence in that happening is because we've got a specific mass behaving in a specific manner.

We don't have it with climate. We don't know what mass is heating and we don't know how much it's heating. If you disagree then tell me what mass is heating and tell me how much the greenhouse is heating it up.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What I've seen is that the market price of what folks call "fossil fuels" has been stable/dropping over the past two centuries. To me that means we're not hitting shortages.

You are merely deflecting the issue .. which is not about shortages, but one of ever-increasing use of.
Are you suggesting that the planet is not affected by this?

 

[anotherneil]

A selection of YouTube videos of scientists (not all of them qualified) among thousands isn't a survery of "what the scientists are actually saying".

Straw man; I never said anything about a survey (or "survery").

A much better tool there would be something like a meta review of the literature.

Alright - please, be my guest; go ahead and create your own thread for this.

Let's pretend that you're just a bit dim (you seem rather clever to me) rather than deceptive and have a look at what you've posted on just the first page of this thread.

Are you accusing me of being deceptive? Ok, how specifically am I being deceptive?

Patrick Moore. Not a climate scientist but in fact a consultant for lobbyists.

Ivae Giaver - not a climate scientist and advisor to the Heartland Institute - a propagandist for tobacco and oil companies, specialising in falsifying controversy.

William Happer - not a climate scientist, was hilarioulsy outed by pranksters as a fraud:

"December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer declined a fee for his work, calling it a "labor of love", but said that they could donate to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by the Greenpeace sting operation. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under U.S. law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal."

William Happer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Freeman Dyson - not a climate scientist.

Ad hom attacks and conspiracy theories aside, the title of this thread is not what the climate scientists are saying, so it seems you're going in the direction of setting up and attacking a straw man.

There are reasons for why it's not limited to just climate scientists; for instance, climate scientists are not biologists, physicians, engineers, mathematicians, statisticians, or computer scientists - and vice versa.

Biologists and physicians are relevant to the issue, because they're the experts on what's helpful or harmful to living organisms from the environment (which includes the atmosphere).

Some engineers in general are relevant to the issue, because they're the experts who design and can analyze the devices and equipment used to take measurements and record them, such as weather satellites and temperature-monitoring stations, to produce and provide the raw data involved; for instance, they're electronic equipment consisting of transducers (used as sensors) and semiconductors which can produce output that can be skewed by the performance of its power source or by the effects of temperature on them from the hardware itself, they need to be properly calibrated, and it is important to be aware of and to understand the nonlinear properties of semiconductors and transducers in a circuit.

Mathematicians and statisticians are relevant to the issue, because they're the experts on the calculations and analysis of the numerical data that's involved.

Computer scientists are relevant to the issue, because they're the experts on things like computer-generated climate prediction models.

I, myself, am not a climate scientist, but with my degrees in both computer science and electrical engineering, I do fall into 2 of these categories; I don't think it's necessary for an individual to have a degree in computer science to look at data from models and observations and recognize GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), such as in this example:

(Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...rsus-the-UAH-and-RSS-satellite_fig4_327993737)

What matters is the relevance of the expertise from the scientists and experts on the subject and issue. Is John Cook a subject matter expert, or a specialist in propaganda?

These individuals are not scientists at all: Al Gore, John Kerry, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Greta Thunberg, Leonardo DiCaprio

Although Bill Nye as a "science communicator" does have a mechanical engineering degree, I would say that it's a subfield of engineering that does not have enough direct relevance to make him a subject matter expert on human-caused climate change; the closest I can think of is as an expert on some of the aspects of the effects of shock, vibration, and temperature on sensors or measuring devices for weather, such as those mounted on satellites, weather balloons, aircraft, etc.

This is what you deem to be "what the scientists are actually saying"? You're absolutely transparent, son.

That's because the good guys don't hide and don't need to hide.

 

[Yerda]

New thread title suggestion: "What the paid advocates of the Heartland Institute have to say on behalf of corporate lobbyists"

 

[anotherneil]

Here are a few more scientists on the issue:


Sherwood Idso - PhD & professor (Arizona State University)

Walter Cunningham - astronaut & physicist (UCLA)

Petr Chýlek - PhD & professor (SUNY Albany, Purdue University, University of Oklahoma, Dalhousie University)

Valentina Zharkova - PhD & professor (Northumbria University)

Scott Denning - PhD & professor (Colorado State University)

 

[anotherneil]

Here is an atmospheric scientist and meteorologist discussing human-caused climate change:

August Auer - M.S. & professor (University of Wyoming)