Global warming, myth or reality?

Dark Angel

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
Pope Francis Steps Up Campaign on Climate Change, to Conservatives’ Alarm

WASHINGTON — Since his first homily in 2013, Pope Francis has preached about the need to protect the earth and all of creation as part of a broad message on the environment. It has caused little controversy so far.

But now, as Francis prepares to deliver what is likely to be a highly influential encyclical this summer on environmental degradation and the effects of human-caused climate change on the poor, he is alarming some conservatives in the United States who are loath to see the Catholic Church reposition itself as a mighty voice in a cause they do not believe in.

As part of the effort for the encyclical, top Vatican officials will hold a summit meeting Tuesday to build momentum for a campaign by Francis to urge world leaders to enact a sweeping United Nations climate change accord in Paris in December. The accord would for the first time commit every nation to enact tough new laws to cut the emissions that cause global warming.

The Vatican summit meeting will focus on the links between poverty, economic development and climate change, with speeches and panel discussions by climate scientists and religious leaders, and economists like Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who is leading efforts to forge the Paris accord, will deliver the opening address.

Vatican officials, who have spent more than a year helping Francis prepare his message, have convened several meetings already on the topic. Last month, they met with the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy.

In the United States, the encyclical will be accompanied by a 12-week campaign, now being prepared with the participation of some Catholic bishops, to raise the issue of climate change and environmental stewardship in sermons, homilies, news media interviews and letters to newspaper editors, said Dan Misleh, executive director of the Catholic Climate Covenant in Washington.

But the effort is already angering a number of American conservatives, among them members of the Heartland Institute, a libertarian group partly funded by the Charles G. Koch Foundation, run by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, who oppose climate policy.


“The Holy Father is being misled by ‘experts’ at the United Nations who have proven unworthy of his trust,” Joseph Bast, the president of the Heartland Institute, said in a statement. “Though Pope Francis’ heart is surely in the right place, he would do his flock and the world a disservice by putting his moral authority behind the United Nations’ unscientific agenda on the climate.”

The institute plans to hold a news conference and panel event in Rome on Tuesday in protest of the Vatican summit meeting.

But climate policy advocates see a scheduled address by the pope to Congress in September as a potent moment — about 30 percent of members of Congress are Catholics, more than belong to any other religion, according to a study published this year by the Pew Research Center.

Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, invited the pope to speak to Congress, but some Catholics say that Mr. Boehner should prepare for some uncomfortable moments. Mr. Boehner, who is Catholic, has often criticized the Obama administration for what he calls its “job killing” environmental agenda.

“I think Boehner was out of his mind to invite the pope to speak to Congress,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, an analyst at the National Catholic Reporter. “Can you imagine what the Republicans will do when he says, ‘You’ve got to do something about global warming’? ”

In addition, a number of Catholics — including Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie and Rick Santorum — are gearing up to compete for the Republican presidential nomination, and most of them question the science of human-caused climate change.

Several conservative Catholic intellectuals who expect the pope’s message to bolster the vast majority of scientists who hold that climate change is induced by human activity, including Robert P. George, a Princeton law professor, have published articles reminding Catholics that papal pronouncements on science are not necessarily sound or binding.

Maureen Mullarkey, a painter and writer, said in the conservative journal First Things that “Francis sullies his office by using demagogic formulations to bully the populace into reflexive climate action with no more substantive guide than theologized propaganda.”

Timothy E. Wirth, vice chairman of the United Nations Foundation, said: “We’ve never seen a pope do anything like this. No single individual has as much global sway as he does. What he is doing will resonate in the government of any country that has a leading Catholic constituency.”

Francis, however, is not the first pope to push an environmental message. His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, called the “green pope” by some, wrote about the environment and the impact of climate change in documents that have been collected in a book, “The Environment.” But Catholic and climate policy experts acknowledge that those works had little substantive impact on global warming policy.

Francis’ policy moves on climate change, particularly his use of the encyclical, go far beyond what has come before. Catholics point to other papal encyclicals that have had public policy impacts: Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical on labor and workers’ rights is believed to have spurred the workers’ rights movement and led to the creation of labor unions.

“I think this moves the needle,” said Charles J. Reid Jr., a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. “Benedict was an ivory-tower academic. He wrote books and hoped they would persuade by reason. But Pope Francis knows how to sell his ideas. He is engaged in the marketplace.”

Francis, who chose the name of St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals and the environment, has had far more influence on the church and public. Born in Argentina, Francis draws cheering crowds from around the world and millions of followers to his social media accounts. He has been embraced for his humility, antipoverty agenda, progressive statements on social issues and efforts to reform the Vatican bureaucracy.

This month he said in a Twitter post: “We need to care for the earth so that it may continue, as God willed, to be a source of life for the entire human family.”

The pope’s influence on the Paris climate accord may be strongest in Latin America. In past years, Latin American countries have resisted efforts to enact climate policy, arguing that developing economies should not have to cut emissions while developed economies continue to pollute.

But over the past year, some Latin American governments have signaled a willingness to step forward on climate policy, and this year Mexico became one of the first nations to submit a plan ahead of the Paris talks.

“This pope is more than just a church leader — he is a political leader, particularly in Latin America,” said Romina Picolotti, president of the Center for Human Rights and Environment in Argentina. “Youth in Latin America are really following him closely.”
 
  • Advertisement
  • Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    More data visualization, yeeeey!! this time about globat temperature anomalies in the oast century from around the globe.

    @LVV this one’s for you <3

    keep in mind this video dates back to 2014, and the guy seems to have predicted the weather in 2019 somewhat accurately. it is established that there are fluctuations at a period of 300 to 500 years; so we may not really have the full picture unless we look at the macro scale as well.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    More data visualization, yeeeey!! this time about globat temperature anomalies in the oast century from around the globe.

    @LVV this one’s for you <3

    Lol he conveniently did not notice the average temperature getting higher ?

    *totally proves global warming is a hoax and god will save us all*
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Lol he conveniently did not notice the average temperature getting higher ?

    *totally proves global warming is a hoax and god will save us all*
    ok, here is a hint, understand first, comment later :p
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    ok, here is a hint, understand first, comment later :p
    Data is from gistemp, raw data. Pretty sure you watched the video since you also liked it, did you fail to notice the rise in temperatures in recent years? Or did you just read temperature anomalies and stopped there?

    Lvv was tagged in vid for climate change denial, he liked the video despite it being against his preconceived notion!

    Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

    Here's a colour coded video to help you visualize the same data in a simpler form since you also seem to have missed the rise in temperature, courtesy of NASA:


    And here's an image to help you out even more:



    You really need to take your own advice :)
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Data is from gisstemp, raw data. Pretty sure you watched the video since you also liked it, did you fail to notice the rise in temperatures in recent years? Or did you just read temperature anomalies and stopped there?

    Lvv was tagged in vid for climate change denial, he liked the video despite it being against his preconceived notion!

    Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

    Here's a colour coded video to help you visualize the same data in a simpler form since you also seem to have missed the rise in temperature, curtosy of NASA:


    And here's an image to help you out even more:



    You really need to take your own advice :)
    there are several cycles that govern temperature changes; the major one has a period of about 100000 years, anther cycle with a smaller amplitude has a period between from 500 to 1000 years, and we are nearing the end of this cycle. if you want to get any useful data you need to do that relatively to the principal frequencies, which makes examining the data over the last 100 years quite meaningless and well within the change suggested by the established long term patterns.

    now since it seems we are at the end of a warm cycle, and temperaturse are about to start plummeting down going forward. the guy in the video i have posted correctly predicted in 2014 that 2019 will be quite colder with the beginning of unprecedented icy conditions in the northern hemisphere. the next decade whether this was an outlier or not.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    there are several cycles that govern temperature changes; the major one has a period of about 100000 years, anther cycle with a smaller amplitude has a period between from 500 to 1000 years, and we are nearing the end of this cycle. if you want to get any useful data you need to do that relatively to the principal frequencies, which makes examining the data over the last 100 years quite meaningless and well within the change suggested by the established long term patterns.

    now since it seems we are at the end of a warm cycle, and temperaturse are about to start plummeting down going forward. the guy in the video i have posted correctly predicted in 2014 that 2019 will be quite colder with the beginning of unprecedented icy conditions in the northern hemisphere. the next decade whether this was an outlier or not.
    The guy in the video you posted talked about materials proven to be a hoax, said his data came from the "weather scientific foundation" that disbanded in the 70s, there is no such thing!

    Manmade global warming is a proven fact according to the overwhelming majority of scientists with all available data backing it up, including the video I posted! Just because we had a couple of storms doesn't mean temperatures are not increasing globally! Actually it's spot on with global warming to get weather extremes with winters getting colder and summers getting hotter, not as your charlatan put it in his video!

    Actually, let's say he's not a charlatan and actually pause the video on that silly chart for a sec:

    There are no temperatures and if there are they are not up to scale lol! the temperature marked at the very bottom is 54.3°F and that is supposed to be "very cold" yet at the top the temp is 58.3°F "warm" and the "normal" temp being 57! Not to mention that warm, very warm, and cold, very cold are not actually scientific descriptors and do not contain any data! To simplify what I mean: he is vastly exaggerating his "data" to imply "cycles" whereas temperature changes are not really up to scale, he actually has no scale! and even in the last part of his "cycle" temperatures are not accurate since he is showing a decline, there is no such thing!

    Here's another chart from NASA that directly contradicts the video you posted by that "climatologist", specifically in that last section in which he predicts a "global cooling"

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    As you can notice, y axis is clearly labeled here unlike in the video!
     
    Last edited:
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I, for one, don't believe that global warming is man-made, and I refuse to be silenced by the alarmists.
     
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Icebergs started melting years ago. Titanic anyone?
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    I, for one, don't believe that global warming is man-made, and I refuse to be silenced by the scientists.
    FTFY!

    You can believe whatever the hell you want, doesn't mean it's factual! Feel free to embrace your inner flat earther and antivaxxer while you're at it :)
     
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Contrary to popular belief, there's no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists that global warming is man-made
    Most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

    Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues: op-ed
     
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    FTFY!

    You can believe whatever the hell you want, doesn't mean it's factual! Feel free to embrace your inner flat earther and antivaxxer while you're at it :)

    It's easy to prove earth isn't flat. All you have to do is take a round-the-world flight.
    But we still don't know to what degree does man contribute to global warming. All we have is theories.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    It's easy to prove earth isn't flat. All you have to do is take a round-the-world flight.
    But we still don't know to what degree does man contribute to global warming. All we have is theories.
    We've had this debate before, I'm not interested in repeating the same thing I said previously for someone who is not really interested in learning why they are wrong! Keep your silly beliefs, feel free to check the resources muki linked for you in his post and educate yourself more, if not, stay in your ignorance I don't really care!
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Contrary to popular belief, there's no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists that global warming is man-made
    Most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

    Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues: op-ed
    Like I said, ignorance is bliss. You are citing a Professor of Economics on the subject of climate change, from a right wing organization.
    Read the three sources I cited and get educated. Stop making a fool out of yourself.

    The 97% consensus on global warming (basic explanation):

    Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

    But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

    So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

    In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.

    Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

    1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.​

    2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.​

    Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016). Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page


    Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page

    Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

    Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

    That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.The consensus gap


    Lead author John Cook explaining the team’s 2016 consensus paper.

    The 97% consensus on global warming
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The 97% consensus on global warming (intermediate explanation):

    Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)
    Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

    1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.​

    2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.​

    Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016). Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page


    Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page

    Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

    Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

    That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=82

    Lead author John Cook explaining the team’s 2016 consensus paper.

    Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'
    Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.



    Oreskes 2004 and Peiser
    A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

    Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

    "Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."​

    Doran 2009
    Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate changeresponded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.


    Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

    Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

    "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

    Anderegg 2010
    This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.


    Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

    Vision Prize
    The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3.



    Figure 3: Vision Prize participant affiliations and fields

    As this figure shows, the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.

    Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased. Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence - the consensus was significantly better than the participants anticipated (Figure 4).



    Figure 4: Vision Prize answers and expected distribution to the question "What influence has human activity had on global average ocean temperatures in the last 250 years?"

    Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
    The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
    The Academies of Science from 80 different countries all endorse the consensus.



    13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
    • Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
    • Royal Society of Canada
    • Chinese Academy of Sciences
    • Academie des Sciences (France)
    • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
    • Indian National Science Academy
    • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
    • Science Council of Japan
    • Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
    • Russian Academy of Sciences
    • Academy of Science of South Africa
    • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
    • National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
    A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
    "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."​

    The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
    • African Academy of Sciences
    • Cameroon Academy of Sciences
    • Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
    • Kenya National Academy of Sciences
    • Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
    • Nigerian Academy of Sciences
    • l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
    • Uganda National Academy of Sciences
    • Academy of Science of South Africa
    • Tanzania Academy of Sciences
    • Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
    • Zambia Academy of Sciences
    • Sudan Academy of Sciences
    Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
    The 97% consensus on global warming
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    The guy in the video you posted talked about materials proven to be a hoax, said his data came from the "weather scientific foundation" that disbanded in the 70s, there is no such thing!
    Manmade global warming is a proven fact according to the overwhelming majority of scientists with all available data backing it up, including the video I posted! Just because we had a couple of storms doesn't mean temperatures are not increasing globally! Actually it's spot on with global warming to get weather extremes with winters getting colder and summers getting hotter, not as your charlatan put it in his video!
    ok, climate oscillations are neither a hoax nor a myth. they are a proven scientific fact.




    and the further you zoom out, the more obvious these cycles become. if we happen to be at the end of one of the warm cycles, the earth will keep getting colder and colder until the next cycles comes around. some of these variations are arguably more like a random walk rather than an accurately predictable cycle, but the oscillation are clearly repeating.

    Actually, let's say he's not a charlatan and actually pause the video on that silly chart for a sec:

    There are no temperatures and if there are they are not up to scale lol! the temperature marked at the very bottom is 54.3°F and that is supposed to be "very cold" yet at the top the temp is 58.3°F "warm" and the "normal" temp being 57! Not to mention that warm, very warm, and cold, very cold are not actually scientific descriptors and do not contain any data! To simplify what I mean: he is vastly exaggerating his "data" to imply "cycles" whereas temperature changes are not really up to scale, he actually has no scale! and even in the last part of his "cycle" temperatures are not accurate since he is showing a decline, there is no such thing!

    Here's another chart from NASA that directly contradicts the video you posted by that "climatologist", specifically in that last section in which he predicts a "global cooling"

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    As you can notice, y axis is clearly labeled here unlike in the video!
    you are really missing the point like usual. when you mix two signals of different frequencies, one of them having a much larger amplitude than the other, it follows that you cannot tell the general direction of slope by looking a portion of the data with a time range much smaller than the period of the signal with the highest amplitude.

    given the nature of the temperature oscillations, the changes and the increase that we are seeing might very well be normal and could have still occurred even if there was no human induced co2 emissions. and the proof is that earth temperature's was actually warmer in the holocene period following the end of the last glacial era than what it is at the present time. s



    so yes if you take the last 100 years it may appear to be rising because you would be riding on the upper slope of one of the smaller amplitude oscillations; given the overall data we seem to be at the end of a warming period and we might very well be heading into a small ice age next.

    and there is nothing more sorrowful than the site of people being insultingly cocky when they are so clueless. quite sad. research the subject before lunching into yet another long and meaningless argument out of ignorance.
     
    Last edited:
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.

    So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work.
    "Giving up arguing because of consistent evidence", means should scientists make new discoveries that contradict established theory, they will go back to the drawing board. The magnitude of man's impact on the climate is not settled science yet...
     
    Top