• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

anotherneil

Active Member
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

Veteran Member
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."


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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Active Member
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."


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:

Spencers-15-comparison-of-44-climate-models-versus-the-UAH-and-RSS-satellite.png

(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.
 
Last edited:

anotherneil

Active Member
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

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

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

 

anotherneil

Active Member
Could you summarize it?
I could but I won't, even if you paid me, because the point of this thread is to show what the scientists are actually saying & if I summarize it, then it defeats the purpose. You're not going to hoodwink me, at least not this time anyways.
 

anotherneil

Active Member
Here are a few more scientists discussing the issue:

Vincent Courtillot - PhD & professor (University of Paris Diderot)



Tim Patterson - PhD & professor (Carleton University)



Steven Koonin - PhD & professor (California Institute of Technology, New York University)



Heidi Cullen - PhD & lecturer (Princeton University)



Anthony Lupo - PhD & professor (University of Missouri)

 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Here are a few more scientists discussing the issue:

Vincent Courtillot - PhD & professor (University of Paris Diderot)



Tim Patterson - PhD & professor (Carleton University)



Steven Koonin - PhD & professor (California Institute of Technology, New York University)



Heidi Cullen - PhD & lecturer (Princeton University)



Anthony Lupo - PhD & professor (University of Missouri)

And you keep showing that you are a science denier. None of these appear to be climate scientists. For example, Tim Patterson is a geologist. He does not do global climate research. He only did research in a very small limited area. And local climates can change at times when the global climate does not. You see this particular error of yours again and again. You do not seem to understand what the "G" stands for in AGW.
 

anotherneil

Active Member
And you keep showing that you are a science denier. None of these appear to be climate scientists. For example, Tim Patterson is a geologist. He does not do global climate research. He only did research in a very small limited area. And local climates can change at times when the global climate does not. You see this particular error of yours again and again. You do not seem to understand what the "G" stands for in AGW.
I'm not a science denier; I'm the opposite of that. I am, however, a religion denier.

I've been through this issue of what counts as a subject matter expert on climate change before, so I'm not sure that you understand how the system of scientific scholarship works. Saying that none of these scientists appear to be climate scientists is like saying that no one who works at NASA appears to be a rocket scientist because none of them have a degree called "rocket science" - there are no degrees called "rocket science." Climate science is part of geology just like rocket science is part of aerospace engineering.

Provide us with a list of names of scientists that fit your criteria of "climate scientist" along with something else to identify them (besides their first and last names), such as the field of their academic degree, where they got their degree, if they're a professor, lecturer, or instructor, what the university is, etc. Please try to identify 25 different individuals or more & if that's too difficult, try your best to find at least 10. I'd also like to know what specifically it is about those individuals that makes them fit your criteria. If you want to validate your position, this is what you'll need to do just to start off, so don't shirk this off. I'll be holding your feet to the fire (and I'll summarily bump up the minimum requirement to 100 names), if you do shirk this off, but continue with posts on this thread consisting of the same sort of persistent berating sentiment. Good luck.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm not a science denier; I'm the opposite of that. I am, however, a religion denier.

I've been through this issue of what counts as a subject matter expert on climate change before, so I'm not sure that you understand how the system of scientific scholarship works. Saying that none of these scientists appear to be climate scientists is like saying that no one who works at NASA appears to be a rocket scientist because none of them have a degree called "rocket science" - there are no degrees called "rocket science." Climate science is part of geology just like rocket science is part of aerospace engineering.

Provide us with a list of names of scientists that fit your criteria of "climate scientist" along with something else to identify them (besides their first and last names), such as the field of their academic degree, where they got their degree, if they're a professor, lecturer, or instructor, what the university is, etc. Please try to identify 25 different individuals or more & if that's too difficult, try your best to find at least 10. I'd also like to know what specifically it is about those individuals that makes them fit your criteria. If you want to validate your position, this is what you'll need to do just to start off, so don't shirk this off. I'll be holding your feet to the fire (and I'll summarily bump up the minimum requirement to 100 names), if you do shirk this off, but continue with posts on this thread consisting of the same sort of persistent berating sentiment. Good luck.
Nope, you have an irrational belief that you can support using proper sources. You do not even seem to know what a scientist us.
 
Top