Is Climate Change real or a Hoax

[BSM1]

Here are some name just to mention a few

• E. A. G. Schuur
• , A. D. McGuire
• , C. Schädel
• , G. Grosse
• , J. W. Harden
• , D. J. Hayes
• , G. Hugelius
• , C. D. Koven
• , P. Kuhry
• , D. M. Lawrence
• , S. M. Natali
• , D. Olefeldt
• , V. E. Romanovsky
• , K. Schaefer
• , M. R. Turetsky
• , C. C. Treat
• J. E. Vonk

How many names do you need?

Just to play your game:

Over 30,000 scientists say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' is a complete hoax and science lie

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Never seen any of these on any news show screaming the world is ending. Nice try, though.

See? No matter what burden you meet, he'll just handwave it. Spends all thread demanding names of scientists, when names are provided "oh, well those don't count because I haven't heard of them".

Exactly as predicted.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Just to play your game:

Over 30,000 scientists say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' is a complete hoax and science lie

Already thoroughly debunked elsewhere in this thread. Try to keep up.

Protip, when looking for scientific studies and articles, try looking at scientific sites. As a guide, generally anything found on an antivax site is of questionable value.

 

[We Never Know]

Just to play your game:

Over 30,000 scientists say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' is a complete hoax and science lie

Do you think global warming has ever occurred on earth?

 

[Jollybear]

The "evidence" was thoroughly discussed in the link and excerpt @Prometheus85 and I sent. Your refusal to read it doesn't make it go away.

That was talking about consensus.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That was talking about consensus.

No, it was talking about the alleged 30000 signature petition. Again, if you'd read it, you would know what it was about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never seen any of these on any news show screaming the world is ending. Nice try, though.

So news shows gets the science wrong. That is not big surprise. This is a huge threat, the misinterpretation of the threat by news sources does not negate it. Al Gore got quite a bit wrong. He also got quite a bit right. Over all he was correct. It is a problem and it must be dealt with. Not for you and me, the minor changes in our lifetime will be bearable. Probably not even for your children. But by your grandchildren's time the changes will affect them and theirs. I have found too many deniers are also the type that only care about themselves, displaying typical Trumpette behavior.

 

[Prometheus85]

You know what these debates usually always amount to?

1, majority says ________
2, your source is wrong

And usually never discuss the evidence.

What are u talking about? Myself and @Kangaroo Feathers sent you links backing up what we were saying and refuting what you were saying. Just because the evidence goes against your beliefs, it doesn’t mean there’s a absence of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to play your game:

Over 30,000 scientists say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' is a complete hoax and science lie

Isn't it amazing! A wingnut site supports a wingnut claim. When one makes claims and cannot find a reliable site that supports them that is a big hint that your claim is almost certainly wrong.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Isn't it amazing! A wingnut site supports a wingnut claim. When one makes claims and cannot find a reliable site that supports them that is a big hint that your claim is almost certainly wrong.

The perils of confirmation bias, when you go looking for confirmation of what you want to believe, rather than objective, rigorous evidence you wind up some weird places.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The perils of confirmation bias, when you go looking for confirmation of what you want to believe, rather than objective, rigorous evidence you wind up some weird places.

I used to oppose this concept, but at that time one could find a few reliable scientists that seemed to have good points against it. Unfortunately for me I found that they had errors in their application of attempting to understand the global climate It was the loons that opposed AGW that eventually taught me the errors of my way. Their method of argumentation was very similar to that of creationists. They would quotemine articles. Misrepresent what papers reported. And of course ignored corrections. When one sees such behavior it should raise red flags. It also demonstrates the difference between belief and knowledge. I wanted to believe that AGW was a hoax. I don't think that even the worst of deniers wants the events that will happen. Unfortunately wanting to believe something does not make it true. Eventually knowledge defeated belief in me.

 

[Bear Wild]

Never seen any of these on any news show screaming the world is ending. Nice try, though.

So only screaming scientists on news count as qualified scientists? No wonder you do not accept Climate change. You just have to find the right news channel and the global warming trend disappears.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I used to oppose this concept, but at that time one could find a few reliable scientists that seemed to have good points against it. Unfortunately for me I found that they had errors in their application of attempting to understand the global climate It was the loons that opposed AGW that eventually taught me the errors of my way. Their method of argumentation was very similar to that of creationists. They would quotemine articles. Misrepresent what papers reported. And of course ignored corrections. When one sees such behavior it should raise red flags. It also demonstrates the difference between belief and knowledge. I wanted to believe that AGW was a hoax. I don't think that even the worst of deniers wants the events that will happen. Unfortunately wanting to believe something does not make it true. Eventually knowledge defeated belief in me.

I never believed it was a hoax, as such, significantly overblown and largely irrelevant, maybe. But the constant drip, drip, drip, of one after another event swayed me. Drip, record summer temps, drip, prolonged drought, drip, tropical cyclones in record frequency and severity, drip, coral bleaching event, drip, glaciers disappearing, drip, more record temps, drip, bushfires of previously unknown severity and frequency, drip, another drought, drip, rate of desertification increasing, drip, drip, drip...

There comes a point where ignoring the obvious signs of looming disaster becomes an act of will, you know?

 

[Prometheus85]

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

This article has been debunked already.

 

[Prometheus85]

The data is just inconclusive.

The earth has and always will naturally warm and cool and it's on. This is verifiable fact everyone in science agrees on. What's contested is what we cannot prove. Is the current warming caused by humans or is it a part of the natural waming/cooling cycle. Some look at the rapid increase in the last 100 years and scream the sky is falling. Others look at the data compared to the history and see that we are actually several thousand years overdue for an ice age, and it could be this warming we are experiencing now is the precursor to the inevitable ice age ahead of us.

So that is why there is such a drastic difference of opinion, even within the govt and its own scientist. Basically you have 3 factions. Left leaning chicken littles, Right leaning deniers, and actually objectivist who look at the data and say, its inconclusive.

Over the course of the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history, the climate has changed a lot. This is true. But the rapid warming we’re seeing now can't be explained by natural cycles of warming and cooling. The kind of changes that would normally happen over hundreds of thousands of years are happening in decades.

So, when people talk about climate change today, they mean anthropogenic (man-made) climate change. This is the warming of Earth’s average temperature as a result of human activity, such as burning coal, oil and gas to produce energy to fuel our homes and transport and cutting down trees to produce the food we eat.

 

[Audie]

Name one scientist that has gone public with irrefutable proof.

Surely surely you are joking with your "irrefutable proof".

That is the last fallback position of the most moss crusted
old creationist who is denying that there is not even
evidence of evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Global Warming also known as human caused global warming, is the rising average temperature of earth atmosphere and oceans and its related effects, sometimes popularly summarized as climate change. But there’s another group out there popularly knowns as global warming deniers who say,

• A is not happening
• B) is not caused by humans
• C) is not significant enough to be a threat

Which makes more sense?

That the question is even made is so depressing...

 

[Audie]

D) You're being manipulated by people. They tell you there is climate change and maybe there is or isn't. But one thing is for sure they have had weather modification for decades. And they aren't telling you that. So they control the weather and they make things happen and then global warming gets blamed or whatever ...

Meanwhile, you're breathing whatever pollutants and toxins they are spraying up there with their chem-trials. You know that it just doesn't stay floating up there right? It all drifts down sooner or later.

People need to unsheep themselves so they can see through all the nonsense. It's the only way anything will change.

Any chance that you are, like, kidding? Right?

 

[Prometheus85]

What matters is proof, not consensus anyways. If i dont know what im talking about, and you do, then explain the proof.

Are u kidding me!? I just provided a link that says the whole petition of scientists saying global warming is not a threat was nothing but propaganda. Obviously you didn’t bother to look at it smh

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are u kidding me!? I just provided a link that says the whole petition of scientists saying global warming is not a threat was nothing but propaganda. Obviously you didn’t bother to look at it smh

I do believe repeating refuted claims is lesson number two in the deniers handbook.