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

[MelancholicPotatoChip]

Introductory post:

Due to popular demand, I will show what the scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change, and I will show that they seem to overwhelmingly be saying that there is no cause for alarm (meaning no reason to stop burning hydrocarbons for energy).

I will provide links to video recordings in this thread. The criteria I am using is that I have to actually be able to see and hear what they are saying from their own mouths, and they have to be providing a talk, presentation, discussion, or interview where they are covering the impact of climate change due to human activity; the video recording has to also provide their name, and it either has to provide their credentials, or I have to be able to find information to corroborate that they are subject matter experts.

Evidence

Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...

science.nasa.gov

Read over this and see what you think about this article. Does this change your mind or no?

 

[MelancholicPotatoChip]

Introductory post:

Due to popular demand, I will show what the scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change, and I will show that they seem to overwhelmingly be saying that there is no cause for alarm (meaning no reason to stop burning hydrocarbons for energy).

I will provide links to video recordings in this thread. The criteria I am using is that I have to actually be able to see and hear what they are saying from their own mouths, and they have to be providing a talk, presentation, discussion, or interview where they are covering the impact of climate change due to human activity; the video recording has to also provide their name, and it either has to provide their credentials, or I have to be able to find information to corroborate that they are subject matter experts.

Read Climate Change

 

[MelancholicPotatoChip]

What a very few scientists are actually saying.

The majority (97%) of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Yes, the majority of scientists agree with climate change. I posted the link from Nasa about climate change. I just reread it.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, the majority of scientists agree with climate change. I posted the link from Nasa about climate change. I just reread it.

I have and several other sources.

 

[Pete in Panama]

There are no obstacles.

Peer reviewed papers in Scientific Journals are the gold standard; 'peer reviewed' means that the rest of the scientific world gets a chance to debate, refute and prove wrong anything written.
Yes, some is backed by funding but even if it is, if it is scientific nonsense it will get called that.
"Polls show that unpublished scientists differ from the published group on climate." - I'm sure they do, but science is not run by popular vote, it is done with evidence and facts.

Nothing is 'assumed' it is argued about, debated, amended and a consensus reached or not reached.

I have looked at the data; you have obviously not done. There are graphs posted in this thread that show the temperature and sea levels are rising. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

You believe that I have not looked at the data, I'd ask you to instead go w/ what you have observed. I understand that the thesis of those who advocate action for climate change say that over the last century humans have raised the temperature of the earth over a degree C w/ their greenhouse gases. If you believe that I'd like to discuss that idea.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You mentioned that the number of papers is 97.1% for those papers with an AGW position.
You omitted that the number of authors at 34.8% is for all authors.
The number of authors with an AGW position is in the same table with 98.4%

Poor reading skill or deliberate misdirection?
Either way, your bias or your incompetence disqualify you.

It's your fault entirely. You should have offered @anotherneil a video or two.

FWIW, I'm searching for an appropriate animated cartoon even as we speak.

 

[Audie]

--and that argument hits three obstacles:

First, when you mention scientists that "publish their findings in peer reviewed papers" then it's fair to consider those that do not. To be able to publish there has to be funding. In most places the funding comes from the gov't. Polls show that unpublished scientists differ from the published group on climate.

Another point is that much of the published work is required to simply "assume" that the climate rhetoric is correct. Anyone can assume anything.

Finally, reality is not up for a vote, it is what it is. If you look for data that supports the notion that people are heating up the earth then you find it's just not there. People who believe the climate mantra do so w/o a scientific basis.

As is the usual in your posts this is heavily
dosed with things you just made up.

I guess you don't even know you're doing it.

 

[Pete in Panama]

As is the usual in your posts this is heavily
dosed with things you just made up.

I guess you don't even know you're doing it.

You object to my posts as being "heavily dosed with things you just made up" and thus you appear to be focused on things you don't like. Please consider that this is not healthy and it's also unpleasant to those around you.

A better option could be to go over my post quoting those things with which you disagree and ask me to explain. Please consider the fact that we all see different things and I am seeing things that you don't see while you see things I don't see. Through cooperation we could share what we're all seeing about we could all expand our understandings.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

It was an insult. Don't worry about it

 

[Quintessence]

I'm just going to leave this here:

World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021

In 2019, Ripple and colleagues (2020) warned of untold suffering and declared a climate emergency together with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from

academic.oup.com

Or if you want the dummy less technical version of this and the prior warnings:

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Twilight Hue]

What a very few scientists are actually saying.

The majority (97%) of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

There is a need to articulate it more. Not just say scientists agree or humans are causing climate change and present a chart or graph.

People want to know how they got that information, and exactly what kind of experiments were used and where.

 

[ChristineM]

There is a need to articulate it more. Not just say scientists agree or humans are causing climate change and present a chart or graph.

People want to know how they got that information, and exactly what kind of experiments were used and where.

It's available on the internet for those interested and can bs bothered looking

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's available on the internet for those interested and can bs bothered looking

I'm just saying in general that's why a lot of people don't really pay it much attention much less giving it any bother.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm just saying in general that's why a lot of people don't really pay it much attention much less giving it any bother.

That's up to them, they are not worried they think they'll be dead before the fat hits the shin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I'm guilty of cherry picking. I'm excluding politicians, celebrities, media personalities, and activists who are not subject matter experts.

While I get your position regarding the need for scientists to have peer review papers on climate change in order to have credibility, which I can respect and appreciate, right now I don't think I can agree with it, because of the potential conflict-of-interest entailed from funding sources to write such papers, and in general it's still opinions that may just be based on confirmation bias; there are also some assertions that they don't even check for correctness or errors in calculations, there are inconsistencies, and it's a subjective process.

There are some scientists on both sides of the AGW issue who do have peer-reviewed work on climate change, and some who don't appear to have such articles.

For now my intention is to put forth a large collection of what scientists are actually saying; they're the ones who peer review each other's papers.

You only seem to be picking non-climate scientists.

To be a scientist one has to be working in the field of that particular science. That is why I asked for their peer reviewed papers. That is how scientists communicate today. What you appear to have found are just science deniers.

Asking for their peer reviewed work, or at least popular articles that refer to their peer reviewed work is a quite reasonable demand.

So far I have shown how your sources were wrong and you had no response to that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bob Carter - PhD (University of Cambridge); James Cook University professor:

Bob Carter is not a climate scientist. Trust me, I used to argue against AGW about 15 years ago and he was one of my go to sources. He deals with local climate only in his cherry picked examples. He never deals with global climate.

I have a bad habit that keeps from being a conspiracy theorist or science denier. When I am seriously debating a topic I read the information given to me by the people that I am arguing against. When I did so I kept finding out that what my opponents said was correct. My sources were flawed.

Climate scientists always argue about the Earth's climate as a whole and cherry pickers will say "Look at this example here!!!" Climate does not change in a uniform manner. You will find some exceptions as ocean currents and other factors get interrupted. There is quite a bit of worry in Europe of what could happen if the Gulf Stream is affected by climate change. Moscow is at the same latitude as northern England, but much much colder. Climate change could warm the globe and yet freeze Europe in the winter. It is not a simple "It got five degrees warmer everywhere".

 

[anotherneil]

You mentioned that the number of papers is 97.1% for those papers with an AGW position.
You omitted that the number of authors at 34.8% is for all authors.
The number of authors with an AGW position is in the same table with 98.4%

Poor reading skill or deliberate misdirection?

You seem to be the one with reading skill issues, because I did say "all authors" - I think you need to read it again:

On Table 3, there's a 97.1%, but it's not for a percentage of climate scientists; it's for abstracts with AGW position that endorse AGW. On that same table, the percent of all authors that endorse AGW is only 34.8% (which is far from a consensus).

Either way, your bias or your incompetence disqualify you.

That's fine with me, because I don't matter; what the experts say is what does matter.

 

[anotherneil]

After you.

Not only were you the one to bring up 97%, but I already did in the very same post where I asked you. What's wrong with you?

And i don't take kindly to ultimations

I don't care.

 

[anotherneil]

You can find scientist to say anything, 'Smoking is good for you', 'Vaccines are harmful', etc. BUT the vast majority of scientists are honest and publish their findings in peer reviewed papers not via YouTube

Not an argument.

 

[anotherneil]

Post away, or lecture an empty auditotorium.

I like others read at a high multiple of speech speed.

So a gish-o-vids is not getting any of my time.

Ok, thank you for your input; bye.