Is climate change real?

[Debate507]

Much debate continues re climate change, with so many denying despite evidence. Why can't we just accept accountability for our actions.

[cancel2 2022]

Much debate continues re climate change, with so many denying despite evidence. Why can't we just accept accountability for our actions.

I can instantly tell what your viewpoint is, and just know you're a climate alarmist.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

[Kobie]

I can instantly tell what your viewpoint is, and just know you're a climate alarmist.

I can instantly tell what your viewpoint is, and just know you're a science denier.

[goldkam]

Climate Change is occurring science has proved this, the question is not a matter of if it is a matter of when. Ignorance is bliss is a perfect statement to sum up many societal views on this issue. The issue with this is the culture and perception of this issue, which continues to be ridiculed and judged. Climate Change has quite a negative stigmas attached to it. Personally I would prefer to spend millions on preserving something than billions trying to repair something. Precaution doesn't hurt anyone.

[cancel2 2022]

I can instantly tell what your viewpoint is, and just know you're a science denier.

My chemistry tutor at university might well have agreed with you.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

[cancel2 2022]

Climate Change is occurring science has proved this, the question is not a matter of if it is a matter of when. Ignorance is bliss is a perfect statement to sum up many societal views on this issue. The issue with this is the culture and perception of this issue, which continues to be ridiculed and judged. Climate Change has quite a negative stigmas attached to it. Personally I would prefer to spend millions on preserving something than billions trying to repair something. Precaution doesn't hurt anyone.

So then, which of the four Represenatative Concentration Pathways outlined in IPCC AR5, do you subscribe to as the most likely?





Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

[goldkam]

So then, which of the four Represenatative Concentration Pathways outlined in IPCC AR5, do you subscribe to as the most likely?





Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

I do not have the expertise or evidence to suggest which possible outcome is more likely. It would require research and knowledge in that field to make that judgement.

[katzgar]

Obviously climate changes real there's no question. The uneducated deplorable hate education and this is just another example

[cancel2 2022]

Obviously climate changes real there's no question. The uneducated deplorable hate education and this is just another example

So what numerate disciplines did you study at university? I am guessing none!

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

[Darth Omar]

Much debate continues re climate change, with so many denying despite evidence. Why can't we just accept accountability for our actions.

Climate change/global warming may be real.

There’s excellent evidence the Maunder Minimum is real. Solar scientists are warning that one is coming in the next decade or so.

I hate being cold, so I hope climate change is real lol.

[cancel2 2022]

I do not have the expertise or evidence to suggest which possible outcome is more likely. It would require research and knowledge in that field to make that judgement.

In her famous 1947 essay “The Lost Tools of Learning", Dorothy Sayers wrote:

“Has it ever struck you as odd, or unfortunate, that today, when the proportion of literacy throughout Western Europe is higher than it has ever been, people should have become susceptible to the influence of advertisement and mass propaganda to an extent hitherto unheard of and unimagined?”

Argument from authority*— Because a famous or respected source said or did something, it must be true/good. It’s used frequently in advertising, and indeed as propaganda.

*



Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

[cancel2 2022]

Climate change/global warming may be real.

There’s excellent evidence the Maunder Minimum is real. Solar scientists are warning that one is coming in the next decade or so.

I hate being cold, so I hope climate change is real lol.

There is a substantial body of evidence to suggest that the Sun is becoming more quiescent and far more muons, caused by more intense cosmic rays, will form in the atmosphere causing greater cloud formation and hence less sunlight to reach the surface.

http://www.thegwpf.com/new-solar-res...ggers-attacks/

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

[goldkam]

In her famous 1947 essay “The Lost Tools of Learning", Dorothy Sayers wrote:

“Has it ever struck you as odd, or unfortunate, that today, when the proportion of literacy throughout Western Europe is higher than it has ever been, people should have become susceptible to the influence of advertisement and mass propaganda to an extent hitherto unheard of and unimagined?”

Argument from authority*— Because a famous or respected source said or did something, it must be true/good. It’s used frequently in advertising, and indeed as propaganda.

*

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

A famous essay does not assert that all scientists, facts or reports must be negated. Individuals use judgement, statistics and various other mediums to assert their perception. If your opinion cannot be backed up with stats and facts it lacks depth.

So to prove my point further...

1. A general consensus was made by 97-98% of scientists that Climate Change is real. This is almost irrefutable, if individuals negate this statement then you negate science and the integrity of scientists themselves. This figure can be found on nearly every website and report you can find.

2. Over the past 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm until the mid-20th century, where they increased from 317 ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm in 2013. CO2 is the cause of the greenhouse effect, which has too be scientifically proven. I can provide dozens of reputable sources like NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ that prove this.

3. We then link rising temperatures (rise of over 1.5F in the past 50 years) to the melting of the Ice Caps. If you refute this I will purchase you a plane ticket to visit Antarctica. Stats prove through empirical evidence that the polar ice caps are being lost at rate of 13.3%. This leading to rising sea levels which is based on imperial data and cannot be refuted.

The point is I could write a book on evidence and empirical evidence.

[PostmodernProphet]

Much debate continues re climate change, with so many denying despite evidence. Why can't we just accept accountability for our actions.

ice core samples show us that climate change is as real today as it was 50,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago......why can't you just accept that human activity did not cause it then and has not caused it now?......

[cancel2 2022]

A famous essay does not assert that all scientists, facts or reports must be negated. Individuals use judgement, statistics and various other mediums to assert their perception. If your opinion cannot be backed up with stats and facts it lacks depth.

So to prove my point further...

1. A general consensus was made by 97-98% of scientists that Climate Change is real. This is almost irrefutable, if individuals negate this statement then you negate science and the integrity of scientists themselves. This figure can be found on nearly every website and report you can find.

2. Over the past 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm until the mid-20th century, where they increased from 317 ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm in 2013. CO2 is the cause of the greenhouse effect, which has too be scientifically proven. I can provide dozens of reputable sources like NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ that prove this.

3. We then link rising temperatures (rise of over 1.5F in the past 50 years) to the melting of the Ice Caps. If you refute this I will purchase you a plane ticket to visit Antarctica. Stats prove through empirical evidence that the polar ice caps are being lost at rate of 13.3%. This leading to rising sea levels which is based on imperial data and cannot be refuted.

The point is I could write a book on evidence and empirical evidence.

It's clear that you didn't even understand post 7. As for the rest, well I suggest that you look through my many posts on the subject. I don't propose to go through it all again for yet another scientific illiterate. I will use instead the opening statement of Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT to the House of Commons back in 2012.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/l...se-of-commons/

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk