Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

Really, not the first clue? I'm curious, on what basis do you believe that you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists?
OK, name the paper where the 97% figure comes from. For bonus points explain the methodology as to how the 97% figure came about.

You'll be able to do this off the top of your head of course so a reply within a few minutes will show us you know what's what.
 
OK, name the paper where the 97% figure comes from. For bonus points explain the methodology as to how the 97% figure came about.

You'll be able to do this off the top of your head of course so a reply within a few minutes will show us you know what's what.
Two minutes good enough?

 

Oyibo

LE
Two minutes good enough?

Something of an anachronistic list of reports. The 97% comes from a DOI report about anthropogenic global warming - remember that?
 
Two minutes good enough?

The Cook et al paper would have sufficed. Now go and have a look at the methodology, particularly with regard to Doran's work to see why the 97% is unreliable.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
One World Seven Continents (or whatever) with Attenborough was on last night looking at South America. Described a volcano in the I think Chilean Andes that erupts with the force of a megaton weapon every ten seconds. Puts mankind into insignificance.
 

anglo

LE
Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

"Last chance" to do what exactly? Anybody on ARRSE know,
 

Tyk

LE
Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

"Last chance" to do what exactly? Anybody on ARRSE know,
Last chance to find them even larger grants, justify the carbon credits and carbon trading cartels and last chance (until the next 40,000 last chances) to make a big pile of dosh conning people.

We've seen so many doomsaying predictions over the last decades that I treat them all as unsubstantiated horsesh1t until I see convincing scientific evidence with verifiable data and conclusions.
 

Mufulira

Old-Salt
Last chance to find them even larger grants, justify the carbon credits and carbon trading cartels and last chance (until the next 40,000 last chances) to make a big pile of dosh conning people.

We've seen so many doomsaying predictions over the last decades that I treat them all as unsubstantiated horsesh1t until I see convincing scientific evidence with verifiable data and conclusions.
I have just spent my Remembrance Day marching about the city (one block square) at -25C the coldest Remembrance Day ever and now its Global Warming!!! WTF
 
We've seen so many doomsaying predictions over the last decades that I treat them all as unsubstantiated horsesh1t until I see convincing scientific evidence with verifiable data and conclusions.
And this is really the crux of the matter.

The Doomsday scenarios get trotted out by the media because that's what gets readers/attention/clicks etc.

There is no proportion regarding the subject. We've had 30 years of predictions based upon climate models, yet none have been right. The models are running too hot. Claims which have been proven wrong, because a date has been passed and the prediction not come to fruition are too numerous to mention, yet the next doomsday scenario is trotted out by the media based on papers that are pretty thin, whilst they ignore the falsified ones.

These ridiculous scenarios should be being contested by climate scientists, but they get given a pass. Now I'm a reasonable fellow and understand that the nuts and bolts of such are not sexy enough, nor easily presented to our 15 second modern media attention spans, but there should be some push-back towards the Hollywood disaster scenarios.

The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory (to give it the correct name) has not been verified by collected data.

Scientists should be screaming hells bells about the alarmism and this should be reflected in the IPCC reports, but we don't hear anything, let alone solid reasoning, prediction or solutions.

I've worked in the aerospace industry for most of my life. Modelling is a mainstay of the industry. Modelling works because when the the real world testing doesn't fit the model then the model gets changed/tweaked to better reflect reality and the design benefits. It doesn't matter whether you drive a car or fly on an aeroplane or whatnot, that modelling works. It works because there's no underlying ideology or dogma. Yes, those models breakdown when pushed, but they give a good enough idea of real world performance to suffice.

I'm a materials engineer by profession, so I've had experience producing material property data whether it's simple stuff like a tensile test to fatigue testing or the more complex testing on many materials, and indeed, later in my career, manage, organise and analyse such, as well as determine whether historic or legacy data can be included for the function required. (You'd be surprised at the fact that data derived in the 40s and 50s is still valid due to the fact that real world experience shows such)

When I read paper's such as the Karl et al paper (2015- [iirc]) which deals with sea surface temperatures, then I see just how poor some of the climate science is. Trying to amalgamate historic and modern sea surface temperatures derived from shipping with modern scientific sea instruments is a no-no, yet that's what they did.

I'd be shown the door if I did likewise in my field.
 
Not trolling anyone (I really don't waste my "trolling" - not in my interests or time" - just posting facts.
A possible (and far from certain) temperature increase of 2-3 degrees over the next couple of centuries is the position "science" is suggesting. That's it. Talk of a DEAD PLANET is hysterical nonsense being used by vested interests to frighten children and stampede twitchy governments into letting loose ever more subsidies for 'renewable' energy mechanisms, most of which are owned overtly or covertly by the most outspoken advocates.
 

Tyk

LE
A possible (and far from certain) temperature increase of 2-3 degrees over the next couple of centuries is the position "science" is suggesting. That's it. Talk of a DEAD PLANET is hysterical nonsense being used by vested interests to frighten children and stampede twitchy governments into letting loose ever more subsidies for 'renewable' energy mechanisms, most of which are owned overtly or covertly by the most outspoken advocates.
Indeed the emotive language is all Project Fear stuff - much like the fear of God was put into the ill educated plebs and led to more atrocities, deaths and wars over how some mythical sky pixie was worshipped. It's the modern day equivalent.

The really bizarre thing that strikes me about renewables is we've had very effective renewable electricity for many decades, this is a wet country and hydro is reliable and effective. The Norwegians built loads of hydro plants and they export significant quantities of electricity (including to the UK), there are literally thousands of spots in the hilly wet parts of the UK that could serve as lake sites. No reliability issues like windfarms and no dependency on the erratic nature of the wind.
 
Yup. A cunning conspiracy of 97% of the world's scientists, exposed only by the heroic efforts of oil companies, Young Earth Creationists, and Billionaires!
So, you are expanding on John Cook's SkepticalScience.com lie, much the same as Obama. Obama also expanded Cook's "97% of Climate scientists" lie to "97% of scientists." See, Cook grazed a few dozen studies by a handful of climate scientists (well less than 1% of existing studies surveyed for his report), discarded everything he could not make agree with his 4 out of 5 or so fabricated "Agree" categories. Many of the scientists he said agree, have stated that they and their studies categorically do not agree. We already covered this earlier in this thread.

So, Cook is a liar, and if you still believe that without checking up on him, then you are so ******* gullible as to beggar all belief. The alternative is, you are a ******* bigger liar than him and know it is ******* bullshit and you have your own agenda to push, or own money to make off the bullshit.
 
Keep ignoring geezers, you will leave a dead planet to future generations..dinosaurs...that's what all the deniers are.
The planet will kill itself, and future generations in it's own time snowflake. Not really anything for mankind to do about that at all, except perhaps escape.

As it is all just an accident anyway, why not pull the plug early on your own bit of the meaningless mess so you don't have to waste psychostereotactic operations any longer?
 
And this is really the crux of the matter.

The Doomsday scenarios get trotted out by the media because that's what gets readers/attention/clicks etc.

There is no proportion regarding the subject. We've had 30 years of predictions based upon climate models, yet none have been right. The models are running too hot. Claims which have been proven wrong, because a date has been passed and the prediction not come to fruition are too numerous to mention, yet the next doomsday scenario is trotted out by the media based on papers that are pretty thin, whilst they ignore the falsified ones.

These ridiculous scenarios should be being contested by climate scientists, but they get given a pass. Now I'm a reasonable fellow and understand that the nuts and bolts of such are not sexy enough, nor easily presented to our 15 second modern media attention spans, but there should be some push-back towards the Hollywood disaster scenarios.

The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory (to give it the correct name) has not been verified by collected data.

Scientists should be screaming hells bells about the alarmism and this should be reflected in the IPCC reports, but we don't hear anything, let alone solid reasoning, prediction or solutions.

I've worked in the aerospace industry for most of my life. Modelling is a mainstay of the industry. Modelling works because when the the real world testing doesn't fit the model then the model gets changed/tweaked to better reflect reality and the design benefits. It doesn't matter whether you drive a car or fly on an aeroplane or whatnot, that modelling works. It works because there's no underlying ideology or dogma. Yes, those models breakdown when pushed, but they give a good enough idea of real world performance to suffice.

I'm a materials engineer by profession, so I've had experience producing material property data whether it's simple stuff like a tensile test to fatigue testing or the more complex testing on many materials, and indeed, later in my career, manage, organise and analyse such, as well as determine whether historic or legacy data can be included for the function required. (You'd be surprised at the fact that data derived in the 40s and 50s is still valid due to the fact that real world experience shows such)

When I read paper's such as the Karl et al paper (2015- [iirc]) which deals with sea surface temperatures, then I see just how poor some of the climate science is. Trying to amalgamate historic and modern sea surface temperatures derived from shipping with modern scientific sea instruments is a no-no, yet that's what they did.

I'd be shown the door if I did likewise in my field.
Temperature sensors here are broken. we're getting temps from the tower on start that are ten to fifteen degrees below what we see on the aircraft instruments, and a short walk outside confirms this. The tower is getting this data from the met office who are also sending it to the WMO as all met bureaux are meant to do. This shitty data is then chucked in with everything else and used to show whatever they want to prove.

We've advised them for the last week their data is incorrect. We're still being given the same line of shit every time we request start.
 
A possible (and far from certain) temperature increase of 2-3 degrees over the next couple of centuries is the position "science" is suggesting. That's it. Talk of a DEAD PLANET is hysterical nonsense being used by vested interests to frighten children and stampede twitchy governments into letting loose ever more subsidies for 'renewable' energy mechanisms, most of which are owned overtly or covertly by the most outspoken advocates.
Worth a watch.


This guy explains where the 2 degree chnages comes from. The assumptions they’ve made to get to it are unrealistic
 
Indeed the emotive language is all Project Fear stuff - much like the fear of God was put into the ill educated plebs and led to more atrocities, deaths and wars over how some mythical sky pixie was worshipped. It's the modern day equivalent.

The really bizarre thing that strikes me about renewables is we've had very effective renewable electricity for many decades, this is a wet country and hydro is reliable and effective. The Norwegians built loads of hydro plants and they export significant quantities of electricity (including to the UK), there are literally thousands of spots in the hilly wet parts of the UK that could serve as lake sites. No reliability issues like windfarms and no dependency on the erratic nature of the wind.
Of course before any concrete is poured, you will have to contend with “environmental campaigners” and “animal rights campaigners” and other Nimbys bemoaning the loss of habitat and visual vandalism and local traffic disruption. Then several years of investigative groundwork, more committees, local resident impact assessments etc etc
God forbid you suggest it for a National Park or SSSI.
 
Worth a watch.


This guy explains where the 2 degree chnages comes from. The assumptions they’ve made to get to it are unrealistic
Describing renewables as environmentally damaging and as "we may be taking chemotherapy for a cold" is definitely going to cause a few "green" heads to explode.

And that photo of the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic was pretty stark and convincing.
 

Latest Threads

Top