Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google search will find you thousands of links
of course there are the climate change deniers
and there are those who say what little we can do won't be nearly enough
just one link:
from the article:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "
couldn't resist one more link - story about Siberia, one of the coldest places on earth where there is human habitation - they now face 100 degree days and multiple wildfires caused by them
https://eos.org/articles/siberian-heat-w....
.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
I couldn't of said it any better
Finally clicked on a link ou yours, googled 2 of the signatories and laughed.
1st name on the list NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR JOHN F. CLAUSER / USA :
dude is expert in quantum mechanics and nobel in physics.
Apparently knows nothing about climate and calls himself a climate denier.
Highly criticized by his peers and never published anything about climate.
2nd guy:NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
specialist in superconductor.
Giaever is currently a science advisor with American conservative and libertarian think tank The Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian 501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.
Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.
Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.
Really inspiring stuff indeed
not only that, lets say he find 2k scientist ?
if i could find 100k scientist (with the same background as he does) holding the counter argument, i wonder if it was still ok to hold the 2% side...
I remember years ago a sweep of many of the scientists working in climate-related areas and 97% said that climate change is largely anthropogenic and the other 3% were funded by the oil and gas industry.
I remember years ago a sweep of many of the scientists working in climate-related areas and 97% said that climate change is largely anthropogenic and the other 3% were funded by the oil and gas industry.
Yes problem is when that overwhelming consensus about the causes is used to claim that there is a consensus about a lot of other far less obvious and far less agreed upon stuff (like how much the warm would get warmer depending on future emissions, how much seas will raise, and how bad or good the sum of ALL the effects would be for human beings).
Montrealcorp for example keeps going with the 97% if i disagree with claims like "there are more hurricanes now because of climate change". And that's the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty (even though in montrealcorp case i fear he simply doesn't understand there isn't a consensus on attribution like he claims there is)
Finally clicked on a link ou yours, googled 2 of the signatories and laughed.
1st name on the list NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR JOHN F. CLAUSER / USA :
dude is expert in quantum mechanics and nobel in physics.
Apparently knows nothing about climate and calls himself a climate denier.
Highly criticized by his peers and never published anything about climate.
2nd guy:NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
specialist in superconductor.
Giaever is currently a science advisor with American conservativ
Your first mistake was thinking this would change NickelDime2000’s mind in any way
Your second mistake was thinking this would change the mind of anyone who stans NickelDime2000
We now live in an era where if you can find a single source that backs you up what you say is the truth that can’t be disproven. No sense fighting it
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
I couldn't of said it any better
Also considering the expression and the literal correct English is ‘I couldn’t have said it any better’ I definitely believe you
The Defiant L's page posted it because it will be seen as an absurd self-own to bring gender into the climate discussion. "Look how ridiculous this woman is for saying climate change has anything to do with gender." It just plays on the emotions of low-resolution thinkers and gives them someone to mock because she's being kind of dramatic. I have no clue what evidence she offered because they only showed an 18 second clip.
And they achieved exactly what they wanted: a hole reposts it as if it is significant here.
Almost 2,000 highly vetted professional scientists (not bureaucrats) signed their names claiming the "climate change" narrative is just a hoax (these ppl are much more qualified to say this than Trump).
Everyone here that understands evidence and opinions is more qualified than Trump. Guess where you are in the heirachy.
Yes problem is when that overwhelming consensus about the causes is used to claim that there is a consensus about a lot of other far less obvious and far less agreed upon stuff (like how much the warm would get warmer depending on future emissions, how much seas will raise, and how bad or good the sum of ALL the effects would be for human beings).
Montrealcorp for example keeps going with the 97% if i disagree with claims like "there are more hurricanes now because of climate change". And that's
And we should ignore the 97% of highly qualified and experienced scientists in the field and go instead with some random online fascist who doesn’t give a **** about people? Gotcha.
“97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing climate change” is a lie. It’s nothing like that proportion, but instead closer to a third. Two thirds don’t agree.
Scientific handheld tricks
Now we come to the core of the publicly widespread denier hatred: the belief in man-made climate change through the industrial use of fossil energy sources. After a Cook study publication et al. (2013) 97 percent of all climate scientists are said to be attached to the thesis of man-made climate change. On closer inspection, however, you have to find out that this ominous 97 percent was conjured up by a manipulative shift in the 100 percent reference size from the original amount of data (12,000 publications) to a subset of only 32 percent.
And this is how it works (all numbers are rounded): The summaries of 12,000 scientific treatises have been examined to determine the cause of the authors there that they assigned to climate change. As a result, 68 percent of the authors had made no statement and of the remaining 32 percent, 30 percent had made people responsible for climate change. Exactly this 32 percent then flowed into the ominous 97 percent statement as a new 100 percent base – and the silent majority of 68 percent was simply dropped under the table. In reality, only 97 percent of 32 percent = 30 percent of all scientific papers examined had supported the model of man-made climate change.
And here's the study that the fraudulent 97% consensus figure came from.
not only that, lets say he find 2k scientist ?
if i could find 100k scientist (with the same background as he does) holding the counter argument, i wonder if it was still ok to hold the 2% side...
I showed you 2,000 scientists who say it's fraud.
I'll make it more easy for you, please show me only 100 scientists with similar background and accomplishments in science as in the letter that say we're about ready to burn up soon in global warming ... You're listening to politicians saying this. They're not scientist, they bureaucrats (frauds).
