41–50 of 117 posts
You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is.
My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view simply fixed for now and the future?
I hate when people call it Climate Change. Thats a phrase right wing think tanks cooked up to soften the blow of the sound of Global Warming. No amount of evidence is going to convince Global Warming deniers. But those who deny but also suffer from the effects will be the first ones with their hands out asking the government for money to save to bail them out. I'm glad the WashPo is writing these kinds of articles, b…
It's a little more complicated than that: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.h...
I hate when people call it Climate Change. Thats a phrase right wing think tanks cooked up to soften the blow of the sound of Global Warming. No amount of evidence is going to convince Global Warming deniers. But those who deny but also suffer from the effects will be the first ones with their hands out asking the government for money to save to bail them out. I'm glad the WashPo is writing these kinds of articles, b…
I find this statement ironic, considering that most of my friends believe that "global warming" became "climate change" because the predictions of the former failed to materialize.
I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…
This xkcd changed my mind: https://xkcd.com/1732/
I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…
What is missing from the debate is 2-3 papers that are agreed on to be the clearest evidence that temperatures are changing due to human inputs.
Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds.
I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…
Everybody also understands there's some natural variation, year-to-year noise which is 20x greater than the human caused warming signal. The trend over the past century is +1.0C / century. Or +0.2C / decade in the second half.
So lukewarmists believe humans are responsible for about half of the observed warming this century (0.5 out of 1.0), the other half is noise which will cancel out in the long run. That implies the projection for future warming is small.
The alarmist position is the opposite: believing that the noise was probably saving us from more warming, and that other mechanisms have acted to keep the observed warming down. In this view, humans are maybe responsible for over a 100% of the warming. This implies that the noise which has kept things manageable will eventually cancel out and we'll see a sharp increase in the rate of warming in the next two decades.
So yes, I think skeptics, lukewarmists, and alarmists are all interested in GMT through 2030 to get a better idea for how much warming we'll get this century.
I know nothing about this topic, but I can caution to point out that Scientific Reports is the lowest rung of the Nature journal heirarchy. When I published there, I was very unimpressed with the quality of the refereeing and editing. Certainly doesn't mean the work is wrong, but laymen shouldn't interpret this as having the same sort of seal of approval as a normal Nature article. In my field (physics), Scientific R…
I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…
I have yet to see any scientific proof as to what percentage of change will be man made, or what degree the earth will change without human intervention. I dont think of myself as a denier but I do think of myself as someone who likes facts. In the research I have done when I have dug deeper it turns up a lot of assumptions\models. I think the science has to develope more to answer those type of questions accurately. I am not jumping to a conclusion of severity, I just want more facts so the correct action can be taken.
I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…
For most lukewarmists it is certain that humans (GHG emissions) are causing the global temperature to increase. But how much? About +0.5C since pre-industrial times. Everybody also understands there's some natural variation, year-to-year noise which is 20x greater than the human caused warming signal. The trend over the past century is +1.0C / century. Or +0.2C / decade in the second half. So lukewarmists believe hum…
So in term of the question I asked, you are saying that skeptics and lukewarmists would change their minds if GMT went up significantly more than their present views predict? And is this something they explicitly state, and all of them?
Also, I was directing my question to deniers and skeptics, so let me ask what is your position.
I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…