When you heat up coke/pepsi, the CO2 bubbles out! — Agent Smith
Things happen in a bathtub, too. — god must be atheist
There is no climate emergency
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.
— THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY (Jun 27, 2022)
Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke for bubble baths? Diet or regular? — Bitter Crank
I prefer to make my own bubbles. Sorry. — god must be atheist
But despite its measured tone and its list of supporters with impressive-sounding titles like professor or doctor, the declaration isn’t what it appears to be, several career climatologists and disinformation experts told Inside Climate News.
Rather, they said, the post seems to be the latest iteration of a broader disinformation campaign that for decades has peddled a series of arguments long discredited by the scientific community at large. Furthermore, the experts told me, the vast majority of the declaration’s signatories have no experience in climate science at all, and the group behind the message—the Climate Intelligence Foundation, or CLINTEL—has well-documented ties to oil money and fossil fuel interest groups. — Inside Climate News
So all the people who blame humanity ALONE for the global warming are nothing but puppets of a political game and they themselves are so absorbed in it, that they don't realize that reality has not been captured yet.
The minority scientists could be wrong, or the majority. At this point all we know is that there is no definite theory that gets complete buy-in; the consensus is of the majority, not of the entirety — god must be atheist
Not quite. Scientific research requires a lot of money. Money comes from political sources. I think you know where this is heading. Scientists are NOT free to investigate as they wish. — god must be atheist
Yes, we are!! I am not arguing that. I am arguing that there is or might be natural forces that are precipitating this change, and that the global warming is not created by man alone. — god must be atheist
But there are scientists -- like you said -- who have conducted research and say the same thing. — god must be atheist
Since these forces exist, and whether we know their nature or origin or not, we CAN'T RULE THEM OUT AS ACTIVE FORCES, AND RENDER THEM TO BE MERE IMPOTENT BYSTANDERS IN THE CHANGE WE EXPERIENCE AND MEASURE TODAY. — god must be atheist
Yes, Xtrix, make fun of my choice of words. You are so good at snide remarks and ridiculing others, while your thinking capacity is, in my opinion, seriously lagging and lacking. You should be a journalist, not a philosopher, because at the latter, my friend, you suck, if you ask me. — god must be atheist
In conclusion: Current mainstream scientific opinion is that the CO2 concentration increased, and that was a product of human activity. This causes global warming.
My counterpoint: in the past global warming and cooling were caused by non-man-made activities. Those global heat energy producing or reducing forces could still be working today. — god must be atheist
97 percent of working climate scientists agree that the warming of Earth’s climate over the last 100 years is mainly due to human activity that has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Why are they so sure?
Earth’s climate has changed naturally over the past 650,000 years, moving in and out of ice ages and warm periods. Changes in climate occur because of alterations in Earth’s energy balance, which result from some kind of external factor or “forcing”—an environmental factor that influences the climate. The ice ages and shifting climate were caused by a combination of changes in solar output, Earth’s orbit, ocean circulation, albedo (the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface) and makeup of the atmosphere (the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone that are present).
Scientists can track these earlier natural changes in climate by examining ice cores drilled from Greenland and Antarctica, which provide evidence about conditions as far back as 800,000 years ago. The ice cores have shown that rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures are closely linked.
Scientists also study tree rings, glaciers, pollen remains, ocean sediments, and changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun to get a picture of Earth’s climate going back hundreds of thousands of years or more.
...
Scientists also can distinguish between CO2 molecules that are emitted naturally by plants and animals and those that result from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon molecules from different sources have different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei; these different versions of molecules are called isotopes. Carbon isotopes derived from burning fossil fuels and deforestation are lighter than those from other sources. Scientists measuring carbon in the atmosphere can see that lighter carbon molecules are increasing, corresponding to the rise in fossil fuel emissions.
Scientists don't expect human extinction to take place due to global warming.
— Tate
Maybe, but I am going by the clip on the Video displayed on the top of this page. That, as far as I can see it, predicts human extinction. That's why I brought this up.
This is what the official opinion is, as I read it (thanks to Xtrix for the contribution)
“If we face this problem head on, if we listen to our best scientists, and act decisively and passionately— I still don’t see any way we can survive.”
— Xtrix — god must be atheist
You are being unnatural. I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity. — god must be atheist
My logic has not said anything how to mitigate the changes. — god must be atheist
Global warming is happening. Climate change is happening. These changes are not entirely due to human-created causes. — god must be atheist
Some new evidence in this argument, taken from established scientific measurements of heat retention by gases: — god must be atheist
In 2013, research published in the journal Science analyzed even earlier temperatures, dating back 11,000 years. The conclusion was the same: our planet has warmed faster in the past century than at any time since the end of the last ice age.
The study also revealed that for the last 2,000 years Earth has actually been in a natural cooling period in terms of its position relative to the sun.
But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains.
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-global-warming-merely-a-natural-cycle/a-57831350
relative opacity to infra red. — unenlightened
The study also revealed that for the last 2,000 years Earth has actually been in a natural cooling period in terms of its position relative to the sun.
But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains.
the increase of CO2 concentration will drive the specific heat of air DOWN, not UP.
Therefore the CO2 increase in air is NOT conducive to global warming.
If you don't understand the physics here, please ask — god must be atheist
Are we expecting the two oppsing forces (natural cooling effect due to earth's orbital characteristics vs. global warming) to cancel each other out? Net effect = normal climate. — Agent Smith
I want to point out that this is not the narrative most people are familiar with. Most people think human contributions to climate started 200 years ago, not 2000. — Tate
This is one of the many ways the narrative is in flux. I think we should welcome challenges to the official view. In that spirit we have the resilience to live with changing narratives. When we become rigid and treat the science in a religious way, science stands to lose credibility. — Tate
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.