That hoary chestnut of the 97% consensus again

evince said:
you just keep pretending science is on your side when its not.

You have to cherry pick


we dont
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourselves this. The people who really understand require proof. Sceptics have been providing the evidence that manages to get through the academic wall. You can deny that government scientists conspired to keep dissent from the journals. But you do so in the face of the emails that confirm the behavior. You deny it willingly.

And as far as cherry picking, you are obviously ignorant to the issue of the tree ring data of 12 trees representing the entire planet.

LOL

Seriously, deshrub, you really should spend a little bit of time reading up on the numerous limitations of the science you support.

Sceptics have read the alarmist arguments
Alarmists have ignored the sceptic arguments
 
what makes you think you are better experts than the vast majority of those in the field?


Dudes you have NOTHING to offer to convince anyone
 
evince said:
science is NOT on your side no matter how much you twist and spin
Click to expand...

I just don't get the point of the debate anymore.

A majority of those in the field also now feel that there isn't much we can do to stave off change, and that our efforts are best directed toward adapting to those changes.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I notice that nobody has addressed why there hasn't been any statistically significant warming for the last 16 years, which is at least as long as the previous warning period from 1980. I also get very tired of the old chestnut about Exxon being behind all the deniers whilst ignoring Goldman Sachs who are still trying to get the carbon trading bubble inflated. I have posted at least a dozen peer reviewed papers on here but it always seems to be the same old refrain, where is the credible evidence? There is credible evidence to say that rising CO2 is a good thing as it is causing erstwhile deserts to bloom again and introduces a powerful negative feedback mechanism as well.

Far from turning the Earth into a baking lifeless hell as had been thought, elevated levels of atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] are causing the deserts of the world to bloom with new green foliage.

green_deserts.jpg


Fire up the patio heater and watch the world turn green!

That's according to new research from government scientists in Australia, who've been scanning the planet's formerly dry and lifeless regions using satellite imagery. "We found a strong link between the rise in atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentrations and a greening that’s been observed across many of the world’s arid environments," explains Dr Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia's national science agency.

According to Donohue and his colleagues' research, climbing levels of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the air correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982 to 2010 across arid areas in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa. "In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently," Dr Donohue says. "This, along with the vast extents of arid landscapes, means Australia featured prominently in our results."

Scientists had long speculated that rising carbon levels would make life easier for the green plants which keep us all alive by the sun-powered process of photosynthesis, in which they suck CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the air, mix it with water to make sugar for themselves and throw away some of the oxygen (so permitting us animals to breathe). "Our work was able to tease-out the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] fertilisation effect," explains Donohue, saying he and his team adjusted their satellite data to account for other processes such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

Donohue cautions that the greening of the deserts could have unforeseen side-effects - for instance there might be more wildfires, now that there are more leaves and plants in arid regions to dry out and burn during hot seasons. Certainly there has been much media coverage of wildfires in recent years. Nonetheless, he says, "on the face of it, elevated CO[SUB]2[/SUB] boosting the foliage in dry country is good news". That would certainly seem to be true for those worried about a warming world. A powerful negative feedback of this sort would suggest that worries over positive-feedback runaway warming - of the sort which underlies the more negative climate forecasts - is much less likely than had been thought.

Donohue and his colleagues' research has been published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, and was flagged up by CSIRO here. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/co2_greens_the_deserts/
Click to expand...

There was a really good show on the Discovery Channel, about the Saharah Desert and how at one time it was green and had plenty of water; but continetal drift and the earth's wobble caused it all to die out.
Maybe it's the wobble that is causing this Global Warming; er: "Climate Change".
 
evince said:
reduce the use of fossil fuels
Click to expand...

It's a little vague, but I'll play. How much to you want to reduce them by? With population increasing, how much do you think would result in a significant change in atmosphere?

Just for some history on the topic, Kyoto - a fairly ambitious endeavor - didn't slow worldwide emissions one iota, mainly due to China's growth and that of other lesser developed countries. It had a few successes, particularly in Europe - but otherwise failed to stem the tide at all.

So, what would you do? And how would you do it in a way that wouldn't crash the already fragile domestic as well as worldwide economy?
 
evince said:
has our attempts to reduce it and its effects crashed the economy yet?
Click to expand...

Nope, but you're missing the point. If we WERE to change emissions to a point that could make any kind of statistical difference - given population growth and ever-increasing energy needs - and we tried to do it in any kind of expedient way, there would be a huge danger to the economy, barring the development of some new technology.

Beyond that, we're not even the #1 nation for emissions. What we do wouldn't matter unless China, Japan, India, et al. followed suit. And we'd really be talking about a revolution here, desh; not a new line of cars that reduces emissions by 8%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top