Report claims with 99% certainty that ACC is real.

Ceepea

Ceepea

Well-Known Member
http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2014/4/15/odds-that-global-warming-is-due-to-natural-factors-slim-to-none#

"This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers," Lovejoy says. "Their two most convincing arguments - that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong - are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it."

Lovejoy's study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%."
 
Ceepea

Ceepea

Well-Known Member
"We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 - on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius," Lovejoy says. "This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.

"While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can't generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases - including this one - the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other."
 
killemsoftly

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
Science to prove global warming. not sure that will go over well with some folks. oh, well...i'm sure we can find another planet by 2050. will be quite interesting to see who gets left behind and who gets on the bus. i won't be their to see
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Lol, another study going allllll the way back to 1880. You can't put a price on the hilarity of this level of stupidity. Even if you were a religious zealot who believes the earth is only 6000 years old, that only covers about 2% of of its climate history. Going by the actual age of 4.5 BILLION years, you just lauded a study that based its argument on a percent somewhere in the neighborhood of .0000000297777778.

That's the equivalent of a study trying to find out the total number of people in the US that have cancer and only examining 9 people. We can definitively say that only 3 people in the US have cancer AND looky, looky, we have a consensus.

Just to make sure I was sufficiently scientific, I used an online scientific calculator.

Time to find a new fictitious, imminent disaster to shriek and wail hysterically over, this one's a nonstarter.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Scientists depend on funding. They get funding by having a problem to study. The worse they say it is, the more urgent their research, and the more funding they get.

There is to much money on both sides, and it has made me to cynical.

If I had to say which, I lean towards man made. But who cares? It's too late. We can't stop it now. I recently watched something about this. I believe the guy. It's happening. If we acted in 1980, maybe 1990 we could have done something.

But he pretty much said with an immediate reduction of 80% of emissions We couldn't stop the ice melt, and ocean rise.

So what's the point?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Lol, another study going allllll the way back to 1880. You can't put a price on the hilarity of this level of stupidity. Even if you were a religious zealot who believes the earth is only 6000 years old, that only covers about 2% of of its climate history. Going by the actual age of 4.5 BILLION years, you just lauded a study that based its argument on a percent somewhere in the neighborhood of .0000000297777778.

That's the equivalent of a study trying to find out the total number of people in the US that have cancer and only examining 9 people. We can definitively say that only 3 people in the US have cancer AND looky, looky, we have a consensus.

Just to make sure I was sufficiently scientific, I used an online scientific calculator.

Time to find a new fictitious, imminent disaster to shriek and wail hysterically over, this one's a nonstarter.
Click to expand...
BigNBushy said:
Scientists depend on funding. They get funding by having a problem to study. The worse they say it is, the more urgent their research, and the more funding they get.

There is to much money on both sides, and it has made me to cynical.

If I had to say which, I lean towards man made. But who cares? It's too late. We can't stop it now. I recently watched something about this. I believe the guy. It's happening. If we acted in 1980, maybe 1990 we could have done something.

But he pretty much said with an immediate reduction of 80% of emissions We couldn't stop the ice melt, and ocean rise.

So what's the point?
Click to expand...
See..

@ MuyLocoNC, then, it should be pretty easy for you to explain what you would accept as proof of anthropogenic climate change, right?

@ BNB, he's wrong. There's still time to change it
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
You might be right... but it is very far gone now.

To get any meaningful results, the cure is about as bad as the disease.

All the side effects besides ocean rise sound equally positive.

Warmer. The earth has been much warmer in the past.
 
sunny747

sunny747

Well-Known Member
Exactly. There is too much money (and control) involved and too much misinformation for me to trust what either side says. Also, governments don't have a very good track record of sharing truth so why would I believe them? So far, nobody has shown me accurate data and unbiased proof that the earth is warming and that it's due to man made carbon emissions. The fact is that climate has always changed. Even the sun has patterns which nobody really seems to take into account. Antarctica has tropical plants buried under its ice.

Even if it is carbon emissions, who will be the first to move out of their home and into a tent or volunteer themselves for soilent green or even walk to the store instead of drive? I hear all of these calls for radical change by people that consume the most? They have 4 children 5 homes, private planes and factories and oh yea, they own a bunch of carbon credits. If someone wants to lecture me about my impact on the environment or population control let them first castrate themselves and live their lives planting trees.

The Earth will survive. It's not going anywhere for now. It's been here a long, long time. Will humans survive? Yes, most likely. They will migrate with the climate. Will this new climate only support a smaller population? Maybe, but change will be slow.and ultimately who cares as long as we don't die terrible, fiery deaths. Population will decline and nature will balance itself out.

The earth is not a god and I'll argue that it does not have consciousness.It is to be appreciated for all of its beauty, but not worshiped. Perhaps the earth was given to us for our use for the time being. Like a pair of shoes, you take care of them, but eventually you outgrow them and you go and get a new pair. Earth like planets are rather common throughout this vast, vast universe. The only trouble is "How do we get there?" I think that one day we will have the answer to this question.

If I dies because of climate change I am ok with that. I've lived an honest and thoughtful life full of joy, struggle and growth.
 
Ceepea

Ceepea

Well-Known Member
The report uses data from as far back as 1500, not 1880.

Harrekin said:
All from less than a predicted 2°F rise in temps?

Sounds legit.
Click to expand...
2 degree average.

Temps could rise 10 degrees in some areas, and get 10 degrees colder in others. The point is, that the entire world, on average, will be warmer.

You realize this study was done by a professor at McGill university, right? Not some governmental panel or corporation....
 
Ceepea

Ceepea

Well-Known Member
sunny747 said:
Exactly. There is too much money (and control) involved and too much misinformation for me to trust what either side says. Also, governments don't have a very good track record of sharing truth so why would I believe them? So far, nobody has shown me accurate data and unbiased proof that the earth is warming and that it's due to man made carbon emissions. The fact is that climate has always changed. Even the sun has patterns which nobody really seems to take into account. Antarctica has tropical plants buried under its ice.

Even if it is carbon emissions, who will be the first to move out of their home and into a tent or volunteer themselves for soilent green or even walk to the store instead of drive? I hear all of these calls for radical change by people that consume the most? They have 4 children 5 homes, private planes and factories and oh yea, they own a bunch of carbon credits. If someone wants to lecture me about my impact on the environment or population control let them first castrate themselves and live their lives planting trees.

The Earth will survive. It's not going anywhere for now. It's been here a long, long time. Will humans survive? Yes, most likely. They will migrate with the climate. Will this new climate only support a smaller population? Maybe, but change will be slow.and ultimately who cares as long as we don't die terrible, fiery deaths. Population will decline and nature will balance itself out.

The earth is not a god and I'll argue that it does not have consciousness.It is to be appreciated for all of its beauty, but not worshiped. Perhaps the earth was given to us for our use for the time being. Like a pair of shoes, you take care of them, but eventually you outgrow them and you go and get a new pair. Earth like planets are rather common throughout this vast, vast universe. The only trouble is "How do we get there?" I think that one day we will have the answer to this question.

If I dies because of climate change I am ok with that. I've lived an honest and thoughtful life full of joy, struggle and growth.
Click to expand...
You might be cool with dying on a sinking ship too, that doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Most people are not completely apathetic to the destruction of the only planet we can live on.
 
Ceepea

Ceepea

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Lol, another study going allllll the way back to 1880. You can't put a price on the hilarity of this level of stupidity. Even if you were a religious zealot who believes the earth is only 6000 years old, that only covers about 2% of of its climate history. Going by the actual age of 4.5 BILLION years, you just lauded a study that based its argument on a percent somewhere in the neighborhood of .0000000297777778.

That's the equivalent of a study trying to find out the total number of people in the US that have cancer and only examining 9 people. We can definitively say that only 3 people in the US have cancer AND looky, looky, we have a consensus.

Just to make sure I was sufficiently scientific, I used an online scientific calculator.

Time to find a new fictitious, imminent disaster to shriek and wail hysterically over, this one's a nonstarter.
Click to expand...
It's pretty easy to link the industrial era with a sudden spike in greenhouse gasses.

Also, the data used was from 1500 onward, not 1880. In other words it traces the steps from the pre-industrial area into the industrial era. Guess what they found? That Basically as soon as we started mass using fossil fuels, greenhouses gases skyrocketed.

If you want to claim it's coincidence that the rise of use of fossil fuels and the rise of greenhouse gasses happened in tandem, you've got some evidence to present that supports your hypothesis.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
See..

@ MuyLocoNC, then, it should be pretty easy for you to explain what you would accept as proof of anthropogenic climate change, right?
Click to expand...

Asked and concisely answered by myself and several other members. Ignoring of responses and repeated asking of the same flaccid question doesn't equal victory. I'm sorry you got nothin else, time to find a new "cause" that gets your liberal panties in a wad.


Padawanbater2 said:
Millions dead. Millions displaced. Billions in damages.

Sounds peachy
Click to expand...


Millions dead? Those are some slow moving people, can't outrun a rising sea level screaming in at an inch a decade. Or maybe it's from additional heatstroke victims? "It's 86° today, he might have survived if it had been 85°, like it would have been without all this man made global warming." Oh, the horror.

Please keep it going, I have a nice belly laugh every time you guys post the latest "evidence" and beat your drums of naïvety.
 
Last edited:
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Ceepea said:
The report uses data from as far back as 1500, not 1880.


You realize this study was done by a professor at McGill university, right?
Click to expand...
Oh, my mistake. Fuck, shit, that changes everything. It jumps from .0000000297777778 to .0000001142222222. GAME CHANGER!!!

A real professor, you say? From McGill university? Checkmate. Well played sir. I can't speak for the other members on this side of the debate, but I, for one, am now a believer. I'm off to get my lobotomy and tights.
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
When the oceans rise, back up.

When the icebergs melt the droughts will be reduced.

We are not destroying this planet. It is simply changing. Just as it has throughout time.

Bring back the Wooly Mammoth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top