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

[Altfish]

Such aggression which is typical of green new deal advocates.

I asked has Bill Nye made a better and more convincing presentation.

Are those three the best you could find?

He relies on evidence and facts all of them, not lies and selective facts.
The jury is no longer out on climate change the only 'scientists' that argue against it are funded by the fossil fuel industry.

 

[ratiocinator]

I would rather be perceived as a climate change denier than a reality denier.

So you only want to be perceived as denying one specific part of reality...

 

[Notanumber]

He relies on evidence and facts all of them, not lies and selective facts.
The jury is no longer out on climate change the only 'scientists' that argue against it are funded by the fossil fuel industry.

I was expecting you to produce something that would have countered the points made here.

They say -

Scepticism among scientist is usually worn as a badge of distinction. In the NASA headquarters, there was the famous sign that said, “In God we trust. All others must bring data.” why is scepticism frowned upon when it comes to global warming or climate change.

In the first IPCC report in 1990, it stated that the observed twentieth century temperature increase could be largely due to natural variability. That statement was true in 1990. It remains true in 2013. They are participating political science. The NIPCC is more credible with independent scientists. The funding is 1000:1 in favour of the man made global warming climate change advocates.

Al Gore was asked what will we get by cutting CO2 emissions and he refused to answer.

Atmospheric CO2 is neither a pollutant nor is it the primary forcing agent for temperature change. Rather CO2 is an overall benefit for humankind. CO2 greens the planet.

I say, it is a risky business to go against the pack. Bullying is not the answer. Follow the money.

 

[Altfish]

I was expecting you to produce something that would have countered the points made here.

They say -

Scepticism among scientist is usually worn as a badge of distinction. In the NASA headquarters, there was the famous sign that said, “In God we trust. All others must bring data.” why is scepticism frowned upon when it comes to global warming or climate change.

In the first IPCC report in 1990, it stated that the observed twentieth century temperature increase could be largely due to natural variability. That statement was true in 1990. It remains true in 2013. They are participating political science. The NIPCC is more credible with independent scientists. The funding is 1000:1 in favour of the man made global warming climate change advocates.

Al Gore was asked what will we get by cutting CO2 emissions and he refused to answer.

Atmospheric CO2 is neither a pollutant nor is it the primary forcing agent for temperature change. Rather CO2 is an overall benefit for humankind. CO2 greens the planet.

I say, it is a risky business to go against the pack. Bullying is not the answer. Follow the money.

Once again an organisation funded by a fossil fuel company. From Wikipedia..
"The Heritage Foundation rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Heritage Foundation is one of many climate change denial organization that has been funded by ExxonMobil"

 

[sayak83]

This is expert has the facts.

An expert needs to have peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic? Does he have it? If not, he is not an expert and is not worth listening to.
Simple

 

[Pete in Panama]

Sure we can. There are multiple proxies for rising temperature rising such as melting ice caps, changing migration patterns...

All physical measurements of temperature are "proxies". Temperature is the amount of heat per mass and heat's the kinetic energy of the molecules. When we see ice melt we can conclude the temp's 0C and it's the same as seeing how far the mercury expands up the thermometer tube when we're checking for a fever. We got lots of ways of measureing temp and they're all proxies.

What we don't have is a measurement of the global average surface temp of the earth. Anecdodes about some glacier melting while some other one's expanding may be interesting. It may be great for some eco-blog but it's useless for supporting a scientific conclusion. The observation is a temp. measurement only if it has degrees, range of accuracy. date/time, and description of what's measured),

We can only say that the average earth's surface temp has increased 0.9C since 1890 after we've measured the current average temp of the earth's surface and compared it to that of 1890.

 

[Notanumber]

Has anyone proved that there is a link between CO2 levels and climate change?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Has anyone proved that there is a link between CO2 levels and climate change?

depends on what we're calling "proof"...

 

[Pete in Panama]

Once again an organisation funded by a fossil fuel company. From Wikipedia..
"The Heritage Foundation rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Heritage Foundation is one of many climate change denial organization that has been funded by ExxonMobil"

let's just say that w/ no public record of any actual funding from Exxon to Heritage that any payment/bribe link is imaginary.

Something else is the fact that payment/bribes don't heat the planet, and whether the globe's warming is determined by stuff like temp readings & not by whose side are the bad guys...

 

[Notanumber]

depends on what we're calling "proof"...

It seems to be more beneficial than not.

 

[Altfish]

let's just say that w/ no public record of any actual funding from Exxon to Heritage that any payment/bribe link is imaginary.

Something else is the fact that payment/bribes don't heat the planet, and whether the globe's warming is determined by stuff like temp readings & not by whose side are the bad guys...

There are multiple references given in the Wiki article.

 

[Altfish]

It seems to be more beneficial than not.

Did you not do biology at school?
Photosynthesis - ring any bells?
That's right plants turn CO2 into O2 - so just like if you give a child more food they'll grow faster than a child with less food ...

 

[Pete in Panama]

It seems to be more beneficial than not.

--and this may be yet another reason why warmer temps are associated w/ increased food production...

 

[Notanumber]

Carbon Dioxide: Benefiting the Biosphere

 

[Notanumber]

I agree with this man.

Regulation and taxes are not the answer.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is typical tactic of the Left to smear someone that disagrees with them rather than come up with a convincing counter argument.

Irony meter... off the scale!

 

[Notanumber]

Irony meter... off the scale!

Who’s smearing whom?

 

[Milton Platt]

I love this "certain industries"
it has the strong whiff of Marxist envy about it.
"Certain industries" wanted to go nuclear power in the 1960's and 1970's.
Certain other industries sought to stop them.
Now we can't have nuclear, coal, oil, gas or hydro.
And the truth about wind power environmental damage is slowly coming out.
So that leaves us running our civilization on roof-top solar cells - as long as
the sun shines.

Long term energy needs will need to be from a mix of sources. Fossil fuels will be in the mix for some time to come. the key is to phase them out as other sources come online. There are no "perfect" solutions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Who’s smearing whom?

That is not a serious question.

 

[Notanumber]

That is not a serious question.

I think you need to get something off your chest, so spit it out in a new thread.