Should we believe the experts or the politicians regarding climate change?

[PruePhillip]

Over due yes a problem to face in the future, climate change is an immediate problem

Could have already started when it was nipped in the bud.
You old enough to remember the Global Freezing Campaign
of the late 1970's?
That cold spell started just when Hitler was about to take
Moscow. And what caused it? The liars told us it was
caused by Globalization, US Imperialism, Corporatism
and greed. No-one mentioned the Jews.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This is from the comments section –

Just because he didn’t drink it doesn’t mean he believes it’s dangerous. Any doctor will tell you a big glass of **** is perfectly safe to drink. Doesn’t mean any of them would drink it .

Pathological and toxicological findings in glyphosate-surfactant herbicide fatality: a case report. - PubMed - NCBI

But at any rate, human activity contributes to climate change (which has negative effects) as well as dangerous pollution.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Why should everyone that disagrees with the majority be dismissed out of hand?

I don't dismiss him out of hand, but I am skeptical of his claims considering he has been an industry consultant and his claims don't appear to take important considerations into account (from what I've seen).

 

[We Never Know]

Does he say how much carbon dioxide is needed for life and how much extra it takes to cause excessive greenhouse effect?

Nope.

Throughout earth's history carbon dioxide(ppm) has been as low as 180(quaternary glaciation) and as high as 4000(cambrian). Life survived.
I wonder if we know the upper and lower limits for our(humans) survival.

 

[PruePhillip]

Until I find some substantial evidence to the contrary, I believe he is worth taking notice of.

Why should everyone that disagrees with the majority be dismissed out of hand?

We would not be where we are today if we had not had any pioneers.

Look... we don't need experts to tell us the world is getting hotter.
And the prime suspect is ourselves.
The real issue is how we manage these changes - even if we
stopped all CO2 emission immediately the fact remains there
is enough of the stuff already up there to keep warming the
planet.

 

[Notanumber]

Throughout earth's history carbon dioxide(ppm) has been as low as 180(quaternary glaciation) and as high as 4000(cambrian). Life survived.
I wonder if we know the upper and lower limits for our(humans) survival.

According to the doctor, 150ppm is lower limit for plant life.

Could any animals survive without plants?

 

[Altfish]

Until I find some substantial evidence to the contrary, I believe he is worth taking notice of.

Why should everyone that disagrees with the majority be dismissed out of hand?

We would not be where we are today if we had not had any pioneers.

Watch the video I posted in #58; it debunks Moore on numerous occasions.

 

[Notanumber]

Look... we don't need experts to tell us the world is getting hotter.
And the prime suspect is ourselves.
The real issue is how we manage these changes - even if we
stopped all CO2 emission immediately the fact remains there
is enough of the stuff already up there to keep warming the
planet.

According to the doctor, it is 400ppm at present.

 

[Augustus]

As if politicians are not paid and quite likely to have their self-interests at the forefront of their minds.

As if you'll find me promoting the expertise of politicians on scientific issues.

I am open minded and willing to learn.

Ok, that some level of CO2 is necessary doesn't mean that high CO2 levels must therefore be benign.

 

[Notanumber]

Watch the video I posted in #58; it debunks Moore on numerous occasions.

Unlike you, I will watch your video but I’m off swimming now.

 

[We Never Know]

According to the doctor, 150ppm is lower limit for plant life.

Could any animals survive without plants?

Life would survive.

Man can't destroy earth or life. Man may destroy himself but earth and life were here before man and earth and life will be here after man.

 

[BSM1]

I feel, with regards to CO2, that he is being a bit disingenuous. Saying that fossil
fuels come from sunshine isn't the point - it's the release of CO2 from these which
is the Problem. And the Earth IS getting hotter, very very fast.
Yes, we need nuclear. And yes, wind power chops up birds so people are draining
wetlands and forest around them to reduce the number of birds. So, it's complicated.

How hot is the earth now?

 

[ChristineM]

Could have already started when it was nipped in the bud.
You old enough to remember the Global Freezing Campaign
of the late 1970's?
That cold spell started just when Hitler was about to take
Moscow. And what caused it? The liars told us it was
caused by Globalization, US Imperialism, Corporatism
and greed. No-one mentioned the Jews.

My mother still talks of the summer of 72, one of the longest hot spells on record.

But conspiracy theories abound, perhaps that cold spell was the first indications of climate change

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is it the fault of scientists that the popular media gets the facts wrong? You cited such an example.

I just wish they would put forth real evidence instead of theoretical models all the time.

One of the posters here in the past, I forgot whos was name it was, I'm sorry.

But anyways had pointed out a particular type of carbon molecule that only came from man-made sources and not natural sources that can be taken from the air. Also the science behind CO2 buildups were you can actually measure the leaves of plants to determine how pervasive CO2 is in the air.

You're not going to convince a lot of people with loads and loads of theoretical and predictive modeling, it deservingly comes across as disingenuous, agenda motivated, and intellectually lazy. It doesn't convince me and it shouldn't convince anybody else.

Working Science is much more demonstrable and direct. Something people can see for themselves.

 

[ChristineM]

Throughout earth's history carbon dioxide(ppm) has been as low as 180(quaternary glaciation) and as high as 4000(cambrian). Life survived.
I wonder if we know the upper and lower limits for our(humans) survival.

Maybe we will find out soon enough

Hi levels of co2 in humans causes hallucinations. Think the oracle at Delphi. I have a hypothesis that the same effect occurs in the bible belt of the US. There is much industry and major cities both coasts. Prevailing winds carries pollutants inland. It rains causing acid rainfall. So far this is known. My hypothesis is that the limestone bedrock (which almost exactly mirrors the bible belt) gasses co2 causing hallucinations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just wish they would put forth real evidence instead of theoretical models all the time.

One of the posters here in the past, I forgot whos was name it was, I'm sorry.

But anyways had pointed out a particular type of carbon molecule that only came from man-made sources and not natural sources that can be taken from the air. Also the science behind CO2 buildups were you can actually measure the leaves of plants to determine how pervasive CO2 is in the air.

You're not going to convince a lot of people with loads and loads of theoretical and predictive modeling, it deservingly comes across as disingenuous, agenda motivated, and intellectually lazy. It doesn't convince me and it shouldn't convince anybody else.

Working Science is much more demonstrable and direct. Something people can see for themselves.

There is plenty of "real evidence" out there. But you need the models. The models tell us what will happen if we don't change.

Now if you want to know how they know that the increase in carbon is man made that is easily explained. That is based upon directly observable science and and is not based upon models.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is plenty of "real evidence" out there. But you need the models. The models tell us what will happen if we don't change.

Now if you want to know how they know that the increase in carbon is man made that is easily explained. That is based upon directly observable science and and is not based upon models.

If they don't explain the science involved behind the modeling then it's completely worthless. Just throwing a chart out there and saying, "I'm the expert believe me" is not exactly going to win any awards.

And yeah definitely explain the science. People want to know what was done behind the scenes.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...the increase in carbon is man made that is easily explained. That is based upon directly observable science...

Too many people pervert the phrase "observable science" away from the idea of a tool for inquiry and use it as a foundation of a belief system; examples:

• "I don't believe in God I believe in observable science."
• "Observable science tells us to raise taxes to save the planet."

Nobody has observed scientifically men (or women for that matter) creating carbon atoms to the point that an average atmospheric incease in carbon is measurable. It's a tenet of belief just like deciding that the average temp. of the globe has increased 1.5C since 1760 even though there're no measurements of the average global temperature for today and for any day in 1760.

The average surface temp. of the sun has been observed w/ an accuracy to four significant figures. Observing that of the earth is prevented by politics.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'm only impressed with experts that have actual evidence to put forth. Not experts to only have theories and models.

What evidence have you looked at that has been out forth?

I think climate change has been manipulated and embellished in some cases. We definitely contribute, but it's not entirely human caused as some alarmists try very hard to make it out to be. I'm also still waiting for those islands to sink.

They also make it sound like climate change happens at a snap of the fingers.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Snap.

The truth is, it takes thousands of years for these processes to cycle through by which a global environment is terraformed. Not decades.

Ditto on the NASA link above.

 

[Pete in Panama]

... saying, "I'm the expert believe me" is not exactly going to win any awards...

--although it can get a few "likes" on this thread. Believing and following an honored leader is what we do in a religion. Science is where we measure, report, argue, and let others repeat the measurements.