MMGW
-
No great loss
-
I had just profoundly won, showing that plenty of scientists disagree that mmgw is
fact...
What irony. All my brilliant rebuttal, "poof".
Several minutes of research down the drain.
May the winter mosquites plaque you, Steve.
-
Haha haha, you're full of yourself. Only in your brain was that a "brilliant rebuttal" where you "profoundly won".
Lol
-
I had just profoundly won, showing that plenty of scientists disagree that mmgw is
fact...
What irony. All my brilliant rebuttal, "poof".
Several minutes of research down the drain.
May the winter mosquites plaque you, Steve.
-
-
Random people on the internet signed a petition? I'm sold.
Even though only 39 of them claim to be climatologists...
-
So like -16 without the wind chill this morning. Record low temperatures all over the country makes it sort of difficult to believe the global warming apocalypse doom-criers.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
So like -16 without the wind chill this morning. Record low temperatures all over the country makes it sort of difficult to believe the global warming apocalypse doom-criers.
So like -16 without the wind chill this morning. Record low temperatures all over the country makes it sort of difficult to believe the global warming apocalypse doom-criers.
You're sort of contradicting yourself there. Global warming/climate change doesn't necessarily mean that every place in the world will see its temperatures rise by a couple of degrees, while maintaining the same basic distribution; rather, it makes the likelihood/frequency of freak weather conditions increase, while the planet on average gets warmer. What you're experiencing now, would count as freak weather, I would say.
-
Right, let's look at this petition then:
"The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
Says what evidence? OR is it all just assumptions and guesswork?
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Yes, yes there is. I'm not going to go out and find every study on the subject - or just copy and paste a load of meaningless google results - but the evidence is there.
On top of the problems with the statements, there's the fact that it's only signed by 40k people - of which only 39 are climatologists. When you consider the sheer number of people that are qualified to the same level as the signatories that haven't signed, it becomes a bit less impressive. There are over 10 million scientists qualified in the fields stated on the petition, so it represents only about 0.4% of people that they are claiming are qualified to comment.
To get a more representative view, you should look at all the scientific papers being published on the subject matter and their conclusions on it. Fortunately, someone's already done this for us - lots of people, in fact. The most recent was in 2013, with the following results:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11β944 climate abstracts from 1991β2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
-
In fact, this site sums it up quite nicely:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
As well as other questions people might have:
-
So like -16 without the wind chill this morning. Record low temperatures all over the country makes it sort of difficult to believe the global warming apocalypse doom-criers.
You're sort of contradicting yourself there. Global warming/climate change doesn't necessarily mean that every place in the world will see its temperatures rise by a couple of degrees, while maintaining the same basic distribution; rather, it makes the likelihood/frequency of freak weather conditions increase, while the planet on average gets warmer. What you're experiencing now, would count as freak weather, I would say.
You're sort of contradicting yourself there. Global warming/climate change doesn't necessarily mean that every place in the world will see its temperatures rise by a couple of degrees, while maintaining the same basic distribution; rather, it makes the likelihood/frequency of freak weather conditions increase, while the planet on average gets warmer. What you're experiencing now, would count as freak weather, I would say.
Kind of like it went from about the 40 in ohio on last sunday, to -12 on monday night/tuesday morning, and could possibly get back up to 50 by saturday....
-
I think man has an effect on the temperature for sure, but doubt that it is anything major compared to volcano's, cow farts, and other natural phenomenon.
-
I think man has an effect on the temperature for sure, but doubt that it is anything major compared to volcano's, cow farts, and other natural phenomenon.
I think man has an effect on the temperature for sure, but doubt that it is anything major compared to volcano's, cow farts, and other natural phenomenon.
Well, no. That site I posted earlier is actually a useful resource at times like this.
Generic anti-MMGW claim:
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissionsβThe oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause aCO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.βWhat the science says:The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks. -
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons
-
So like -16 without the wind chill this morning. Record low temperatures all over the country makes it sort of difficult to believe the global warming apocalypse doom-criers.
So like -16 without the wind chill this morning. Record low temperatures all over the country makes it sort of difficult to believe the global warming apocalypse doom-criers.
There are also record high temperatures in Australia right now.
One of the predictions with climate change is more extremes. higher highs, lower lows and crazy weather, while the overall average temp is rising
-
Exactly, more evidence of humans having an impact on the environment, I'm glad you agree.
-
Exactly, more evidence of humans having an impact on the environment, I'm glad you agree.
Exactly, more evidence of humans having an impact on the environment, I'm glad you agree.
Are you stereo typing everyone who doesn't share the world wide hysteria? I've never said that mankind has no effect on whatever difference the co2 level makes.
I just keep repeating that if it is actually that important to anybody that they should really be vegan and walk wherever they go. Or they should STFU and quit bothering me about it.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Who is bothering you about it?
No one person is going to make a change. It all has to come from govt and policy makers. But, do to politics and lobby groups mudding the waters and creating confusion among the public, we are still waiting.
-
Exactly, more evidence of humans having an impact on the environment, I'm glad you agree.
Are you stereo typing everyone who doesn't share the world wide hysteria? I've never said that mankind has no effect on whatever difference the co2 level makes.
I just keep repeating that if it is actually that important to anybody that they should really be vegan and walk wherever they go. Or they should STFU and quit bothering me about it.
WSS
Are you stereo typing everyone who doesn't share the world wide hysteria? I've never said that mankind has no effect on whatever difference the co2 level makes.
I just keep repeating that if it is actually that important to anybody that they should really be vegan and walk wherever they go. Or they should STFU and quit bothering me about it.
WSS
Sorry, I thought it was DieHard who posted it. But the point remains, it's because of us humans that we have these issues. And yes, everybody going vegan would have a big impact on it, but it's not exactly likely! Then again, if we start taxing meat from these animals for example to make it difficult to afford, so that less is consumed, eventually the total cow population will decrease and their effect will decrease with it.
So yes, it's a valid point. But I love a good steak
-
Are you stereo typing everyone who doesn't share the world wide hysteria? I've never said that mankind has no effect on whatever difference the co2 level makes.
I just keep repeating that if it is actually that important to anybody that they should really be vegan and walk wherever they go. Or they should STFU and quit bothering me about it.
WSS
Sorry, I thought it was DieHard who posted it. But the point remains, it's because of us humans that we have these issues. And yes, everybody going vegan would have a big impact on it, but it's not exactly likely! Then again, if we start taxing meat from these animals for example to make it difficult to afford, so that less is consumed, eventually the total cow population will decrease and their effect will decrease with it.
So yes, it's a valid point. But I love a good steak
Sorry, I thought it was DieHard who posted it. But the point remains, it's because of us humans that we have these issues. And yes, everybody going vegan would have a big impact on it, but it's not exactly likely! Then again, if we start taxing meat from these animals for example to make it difficult to afford, so that less is consumed, eventually the total cow population will decrease and their effect will decrease with it.
So yes, it's a valid point. But I love a good steak
Also, this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
This may become the stock way to respond to MMGW questions in future - the facts seem to be nicely laid out for us there.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better π
Register Login