CLIMATE HYSTERIA GOES UP A NOTCH (OR TWO)

@Graylight the greatest increase, however, has been in the last 150-200 years, and, within that, the last 50-60.

@Graylight It is impossible scientifically to confirm that any temperature rise is anthropogenic. That is pure theorising. So the whole blaming-men-and-cows-for-breathing thing is politically inspired, not scientifically.

@WalterF keep on denying, luckily, you are not in a position to make decisions necessary to reverse the human affects.

@samueltyler2 Keep on taking your meds (freely dispensed by your friendly TV).

And keep that mask on - The Science estimates that it reduces the temperature of your breathing by 0.2°C, enough to save a polar bear from Global Boiling (if you can keep it up for a couple of hundred years).

@WalterF trying to bully only underscores where you really come from.

@samueltyler2 Scarcely bullying! I call it gentle ribbing. You should be convinced enough of your position to take it on the chin, and give it back in kind. But don't call it bullying.

And while we're on the subject: the false notion that the climate is collapsing due to human activity lies at the heart of the drive to collectivise human populations under a Net Zero global agenda. Everything about it is a lie. The science is not ‘settled’, it is an unproven hypothesis, and stating otherwise is giving credence to an obvious political construct. There is no way that scientists can calculate how much of the gentle rise in temperature seen over the last 200 years is caused by humans burning fossil fuel rather than natural influences. The idea that there is a 97% ‘consensus’ among scientists that humans cause the majority of warming is a whopper as big as they come, not least because holding that view is beyond current scientific knowledge.

@WalterF you really have bought into a conspiracy theory that is really nonsense.

@samueltyler2 Ok.

@WalterF Gravity’s a theory, too.

@Graylight No, it's proven beyond dispute. Nothing theoretical there.

@WalterF It is both a theory and a law. The law of gravity calculates the amount of attraction while the theory describes why objects attract each other in the first place.

@Graylight And these accepted conclusions have been reached - like all scientific matters on which there is consensus - by proposing / debating / rejecting / perfecting thinking from all competent scientists participating in the research.

NEVER HAVE THERE BEEN SUCH UNSCIENTIFIC PROCEEDINGS as we have seen in latter years, notably in the covid hysteria and now in the climate pretensions, where ONE SINGLE VIEWPOINT IS PROMOTED and ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS, no matter how valid, ARE REJECTED AND VILIFIED because they go against the official narrative.

Shameful times, where "The Science" (trademark) has booted out real science, and the people have all foolishly said amen

@WalterF The current scientific consensus is that:

Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.

Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause of that warming.
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

And there have been Consensus Studies. Among the most cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12K abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4K papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused. It is "extremely likely" that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.

[i]Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Jacobs, Peter; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Rice, Ken (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11

Wuebbles, D.J.; Fahey, D.W.; Hibbard, K.A.; Deangelo, B.; Doherty, S.; Hayhoe, K.; Horton, R.; Kossin, J.P.; Taylor, P.C.; Waple, A.M.; Yohe, C.P. (23 November 2018). "Climate Science Special Report / Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I

Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Jacobs, Peter; Skuce, Andrew (15 May 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett. IOP Publishing Ltd.

"Scientific and Public Perspectives on Climate Change / Scientists' vs. Public Understanding of Human-Caused Global Warming". climatecommunication.yale.edu. Yale University. 29 May 2013[/i]

@Graylight Leftist hoax.

@Graylight The idea that there is a 97% ‘consensus’ among scientists that humans cause the majority of warming is a whopper as big as they come, not least because holding that view is beyond current scientific knowledge.

This latter ubiquitous claim was recently revisited ina short essaypublished by the CO2Coalition. It arose from a 2013 paper published by John Cook and asserted that 97% of 11,944 peer-reviewed science papers explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans had caused the majority of the warming of the last 150 years. Alas, 7,930 of those papers took no position on anthropogenic change and were excluded from the 97% claim. It was subsequently revealed that only about [b][c=BF0000]0.5%, [/c][/b]of the papers explicitly stated that recent warming was mostly human caused.

@WalterF does it really matter if as little as 25% was caused by humans(do not state that i lowered my own opinion, i just used this as an example), in activities that can be curtailed? The bottom line in this argument is that at least some of climate change is related to human activities, and we owe it to the earth to try to eliminate as much as possible any further damage we might do to our environment. How many species are now extinct compared to even 25 years ago?

@samueltyler2 Unilateral Western efforts to cut CO2 emissions based on climate pseudo-science are doubly unjustified as there is no likelihood of the world’s developing economies following suit. President Xi Jinping has reiterated that China will not be bound by the Paris Agreement and is on a spree of building coal-fired power stations which will still be running 60 years from now[b]. The UK generates just 1% of global CO2 emissions[/b] so prime minister Rishi Sunak’s insistence that we must press ahead with ruinous and unachievable Net Zero is, in these circumstances, clear proof that Net Zero has nothing to do with “tackling climate change”.

Political.

Serving the "Great Reset"