Australian Politics Forum - Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #15 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:52pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis.

That's right.

Most climate scientists support the hypothesis.

Believing that smoking causes cancer is a hypothesis does not protect you from the dangers of smoking. It is a hypothesis that I believe has been proven through multiple lines of independent evidence. The physics, I believe, is indisputable.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:59pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Uncle Meat

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2434
Tasmania
Gender: male

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #16 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:59pm

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis.

That's right.

Most climate scientists support the hypothesis.

Believing that smoking causes cancer is a hypothesis does not protect you from the dangers of smoking. It is a hypothesis that I believe has been proven through multiple lines of independent evidence. The physics I believe is indisputable.

I agree.

However, the same can not be said for AGW.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26589
Australia

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #17 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:59pm

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis.

That's right.

Most climate scientists support the hypothesis.

Believing that smoking causes cancer is a hypothesis does not protect you from the dangers of smoking. It is a hypothesis that I believe has been proven through multiple lines of independent evidence. The physics I believe is indisputable.

Bad example since "smoking causes cancer" is an outright lie put out by govts and media propaganda and climate science is an actual science which we can actually observe.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #18 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:02pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis.

That's right.

Most climate scientists support the hypothesis.

Believing that smoking causes cancer is a hypothesis does not protect you from the dangers of smoking. It is a hypothesis that I believe has been proven through multiple lines of independent evidence. The physics I believe is indisputable.

I agree.

However, the same can not be said for AGW.

The physics behind AGW is very clear.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #19 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:11pm

Any video that says there is not much of a debate going on or there is not as much support for the skeptic view in climate science, is obviously not worth watching. It was a bit hard to go past the 3 minute mark with the stupid points put up on the screeen. It sounded like the good Dr was looking at the world through a 5 year olds eyes.

I dont know how good this list is, but it is a start.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Back to top

IP Logged

Uncle Meat Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2434 Tasmania Gender:	Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US. Reply #20 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:19pm MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:02pm: The physics behind AGW is very clear. Yes. The evidence is not though.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US. Reply #21 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 5:30pm Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:19pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:02pm: The physics behind AGW is very clear. Yes. The evidence is not though. I don't see how it could be any clearer.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Uncle Meat

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2434
Tasmania
Gender: male

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #22 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 6:10pm

muso wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

The physics behind AGW is very clear.

Yes. The evidence is not though.

I don't see how it could be any clearer.

Oh dear.

Tree rings, ice cores, modelling, predictions, guesstimates ...

Clear as mud.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #23 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 8:49pm

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:11pm:

Any video that says there is not much of a debate going on or there is not as much support for the skeptic view in climate science, is obviously not worth watching. It was a bit hard to go past the 3 minute mark with the stupid points put up on the screeen. It sounded like the good Dr was looking at the world through a 5 year olds eyes.

I dont know how good this list is, but it is a start.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

The 97% figure comes from two independent studies. One study surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Another study directly asked earth scientists the following question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" They found 97% of actively publishing climate scientists answered yes, 2% were unsure, only 1% said no (Doran 2009).

The reality is that there is not much debate going on. How can you ever expect to learn the truth when you turn off the moment someone offers a different perspective to your world view. Ironically, if you had continued watching the video you would have found out it specifically refers to the list you have linked in your post.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 20^th, 2012 at 9:17pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US. Reply #24 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 9:55pm The list of 900 is a very dodgy list. But rather than picking apart the list it is far quicker to simply put that number into perspective. One rough estimate is that there are about 190,000 papers on climate change. That puts us somewhere in the vicinity of 0.5%, so not even 1%.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

Uncle Meat

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2434
Tasmania
Gender: male

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #25 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 10:56pm

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 8:49pm:

The reality is that there is not much debate going on.

And that's the whole problem.

AGW disciples say the science is in, and anyone who disagrees is a "denier"

The AGW hypothesis may be correct, however, at this stage it doesn't have enough credible evidence to back it up.

Therefore, we need to continue the debate.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #26 - Apr 21^st, 2012 at 4:05am

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 10:56pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 8:49pm:

The reality is that there is not much debate going on.

And that's the whole problem.

AGW disciples say the science is in, and anyone who disagrees is a "denier"

The AGW hypothesis may be correct, however, at this stage it doesn't have enough credible evidence to back it up.

Therefore, we need to continue the debate.

That's the way science works, Uncle Meat. The debate will always continue. 97% of climate scientists believe there is already enough evidence to form a positive conclusion about AGW, only 2% are unsure and 1% outright disagree. When the consequences of not acting are so dire it is irrational to postpone action until we can convince everyone there is absolute proof.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Incomptinence

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 190
Gender: male

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #27 - May 3^rd, 2012 at 7:07pm

Well if the US does not believe in climate change there is no question, it must be a hoax!

More hand me down delusion for the flock of sheep so tight no member steps out lockstep with the flock even over international distances. Cyborg sheep of BEEP BOOP.

We import so much quality thinking from that rotting right wing cesspit we might as well scoop our own brains out and have American brains implanted.

On a more serious less frothing at the mouth note it is just the short attention span of people so lucky they don't get engrossed in this rotten politics stuff.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #28 - May 5^th, 2012 at 12:48pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 6:10pm:

muso wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

The physics behind AGW is very clear.

Yes. The evidence is not though.

I don't see how it could be any clearer.

Oh dear.

Tree rings, ice cores, modelling, predictions, guesstimates ...

Clear as mud.

Finding economically viable deposits of minerals is hardly an exact science either! But they still manage to do it!!

Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged