You like to throw that term around don't you dave. Like you just read of it and thought it's cool and makes you look important and smart. You know it's origins of course, it's mostly employed in science papers, like at the end of rigorous mathematical proofs.
What you may not know though, since you have never been to uni, is that Wikipedia is not regarded as a credible source in scientific circles. In fact if you were to be in your first semester of an undergrad at uni and you submitted an essay with material cited off wikipedia they would reprimanded you. It's not acceptable. So you see your earlier "proof" , that pile of names of scientists, is not credible.
Which makes you, not credible for copy pasting it. QED.
Shadow was hopelessly wrong about the Gold Bull Market. What else is he wrong about?
You feel safer following the herd, I get it, you lack ability to think for yourself and must blindly follow the herd, thats OK with me, at least with that attitude you'll eventually end up on the right side with me and the other independent thinkers when the herd changes direction.
Don't think I'll be ending up on your side on this Dave. You keep ignoring requests for credible evidence and insulting other posters, not a good tactic to convince people of your stance on an issue. You also ignore the fact that in science, the herd (or the consensus if you like) tends to be right.
An analogy would be vaccinations. There are a few scientists who don't accept their safety and claim that having them is more dangerous than not having them, and a few nutjobs accept that. The 'herd' of scientists disagree, which is why we vaccinate our kids against measles and mumps and polio.... get it?
He's just another internet nobody steve. I meet people like him every day. Sheeple they are called. A politician gets on tv and says AGW is a conspiracy and we will unwind the carbon tax for you and they swallow it hook line and sinker. I don't know if it is a serious threat in my lifetime but it will be in someone's lifetime. We should think of our future children's children and what kind of world they will be facing. In 50 or 100 years there will no coal oil or gas at the rate these deniers are burning it up.
That what it really boils down to. They don't want to give up their profligate lifestyle for the sake of future generations. Selfish Pricks is what they are.
Shadow was hopelessly wrong about the Gold Bull Market. What else is he wrong about?
That what it really boils down to. They don't want to give up their profligate lifestyle for the sake of future generations. Selfish Pricks is what they are.
thing is its not even so much about giving up lifestyle as having open discussion and cultural shift to address the issues and how we could go about ensuring we dont screw up the planet for our kids' kids.
there's no reason we cant eventually be living even better lifestyles that are at the same time more environmentally sound and thats the way the issue should be approached. ( im not a fan of the "switch your lights off" mindset. more "connect your lights to a clean energy source" )
and those darn extreme environmentalists / scare mongerers do more harm than good, creating agendas that beg for counter views. Carbon tax for one was a farking ridiculous cash grab , and it got everyone's hackles up on global warming/climate change.
There's no evidence vaccines don't work, so that's a dumb analogy!
There's bucketloads of proof global warming isn't happening, like the DATA proving it stopped 17 years ago even while CO2 emissions WENT UP, so whats the link between CO2 and warming again, please tell me? The panickers said the science was settled and more CO2 = more warming, but oh lookie, in the last 17 years more CO2 = LESS warming, funny that! Now they say the science (that was settled before) was wrong, they didn't realise sometimes warming hides in the depths of the sea, (not on the surface of the sea of course because then they'd need to explain all the expanding sea ice!)
People like goldbug and steve are internet nobodies, sheeple who follow the herd regurgitate spin fed to them by the warmist lobby. Warmists get on TV and say climate change stopped being caused by the sun and started being caused by humans 100 years ago, and you swallow it hook line and sinker! You need to learn to think for yourself.
Bet you were sucked in by the 97% consensus lie too!
We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots.
Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².
Dave, here's a few scientists for you to shout at. Or would you call them internet nobodies? I'd say they'd know more about the subject than you, or are you claiming to have more expertise on the subject than them?
What really annoys scientists about the state of the climate change debate? From misinformed politicians who should 'shut up', to a failure of large parts of society to grasp reality, climate scientists reveal their bugbears
Here’s what they had to say.
Professor Andrew Pitman, director of the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney
Many people who would not dream to claim they understand how antibiotics, microprocessors or immunisations work seem happy to wax lyrical on their views on climate change.
A politician or media identity who would be laughed out of office if they said “vaccines don't work" or “I am certain the moon is made of cheese" happily speak equivalent rubbish on climate science, believing their views deserve credit.
I want engineers to build bridges; I want a trained surgeon to operate on hearts and I want some of our decision-makers and commentators to either shut up, or familiarise themselves with climate science well enough to talk sense.
Professor Michael Mann, director of Penn State Earth System Science Center, United States
If there’s one concept that is typically misrepresented in the public discourse on climate change, it is the concept of uncertainty.
There are uncertainties in model projections of future climate change. However, these uncertainties cut both ways, and in many cases it appears that model projections have underestimated the rate and magnitude of the climate changes resulting from our burning of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The rapid lost of Arctic sea ice is one such example.
Rather than being cause for inaction, uncertainty is a reason to act all the sooner.
Professor Michael Raupach, director of the Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Canberra
The greatest cause for sorrow is the widespread inability of the public discussion to recognise the whole picture.
Much of the political discourse reduces the complexities of climate change to political football (“axe the tax”); much media reporting sees only the hook to today’s passing story; many interest groups want to use climate change to proselytise for their particular get-out-of-jail free card (nuclear power, carbon farming).
All of this misses or trivialises the real, systemic significance of climate change: that humankind is encountering the finitude of our planet, confronting the need to share and protect our endowment from nature, and realising that much will have to change to make this possible.
Professor Richard Betts, chair in Climate Impacts at the College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, UK
The thing that bugs me most about the way climate change is talked about in the media is journalists citing scientific papers without providing a link to the original paper.
Readers often want to get more details or simply check sources, but this is very difficult (or sometimes impossible) if the source is not given. I've raised this a few times, and get lame excuses like 'readers get frustrated when the journals are paywalled' but that's not good enough. Media should provide sources – end of.
Professor Steven Sherwood, director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Sydney
Where to start?
These are things I don’t see (or don’t see enough).
First is still that, even though it is clear greenhouse gas emissions raise the temperature of the Earth, we’ve known this for 50+ years and no reputable atmospheric scientist in the world disputes this, most people think scientists disagree. They’ve been misled by the media, and I’ve been told repeatedly by reporters in the US and Australia that this is due to pressure from management.
Second is the fact that carbon dioxide emissions are effectively irreversible and will stay in the climate system for hundreds of generations is seldom noted. If we decide later that this was a huge mistake there is no going back (practically speaking).
On the political side, I wish the media would note the obvious parallels of the carbon debate with past ones over restricting pollutants (mercury, lead, asbestos, CFCs), where claims that restrictions would be economically catastrophic never came true.
These are things I do see that bug me.
One would be phrases like “action on climate change”. We should be talking about “action on carbon dioxide” — and climate is only one reason (albeit the biggest) that too much of it is dangerous. Nothing we do with respect to any other influence on climate will prevent global warming if CO2 keeps climbing.
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, head of Earth System Analysis, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
One of the phrases that makes me cringe is when I read in the media that a particular extreme weather event "is no evidence for climate change". This is so bad it's not even wrong, but it is quite misleading.
Climate change is a measured fact seen in rising temperatures, vanishing ice, rising sea levels etc. - it needs no further evidence. And a single extreme event cannot possibly provide such evidence, because climate change increases the number of certain extremes. Some, like heat waves, have already increased massively thanks to global warming.
Professor Roger Jones, research fellow at the Centre for Strategic and Economic Studies at Victoria University, Melbourne
Who am I?
I can be sued for calling a public individual fraudulent but not a whole scientific community or organisation – because climate scientists and the IPCC are fraudulent.
I can publish proven lies in my newspaper day after day with no penalty.
I can buy disaffected scientists to deny sound science with a plane fare to a bogus conference and a little publicity.
I can anonymously threaten researchers online, especially the female ones.
If anyone threatens me with facts, I can call them an antidemocratic, anti-jobs, McCarthyist, communist, anti-freedom, pagan environmentalist.
Everyone says there is no consensus.
I deny everything.
Dr Sophie Lewis, research fellow in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne
I get annoyed when I hear yet another politician arguing that we can’t link extreme events to climate change. You know the spurious reasoning? Australia’s always had heatwaves/floods/fires, so this recent extreme is nothing to worry about. When I hear this, it’s time to turn off the TV.
Climate scientists don’t just guess at what contributed to recent extremes. We methodically calculate changes in the risk of extremes due to human factors, like greenhouse gases. I don’t just get irate out of principle.
Dismissing the link between climate change and extremes as hogwash leaves us vulnerable to a warmer climate.
Dr Andrew Glikson, visiting fellow at the School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University
I think the scale of the changes being seen now when compared to the Earth's history is something the media and the public do not appreciate. Earth's history is marked by a number of major mass extinctions of species, triggered by volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts and release of methane from sediments.
Major shifts in the state of the climate were caused either by pulsations in solar radiation or by release of carbon from the Earth. In each of these events a marked rise occurred in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
As the level of energy and temperature of the atmosphere increased, irreversible tipping points were reached where the synergy of feedback processes – ice melt, warming water, released methane, droughts and fires - combined to shift the climate from one state to the next.
The current rise in energy of the atmosphere above that of pre-industrial times, by about 3 Watt per square meter, is about half that of the atmospheric energy rise during the last transition from glacial to interglacial state.
The current shift is threatening to bring about irreversible tipping points in the climate, with the most serious consequences, likely indicated by the increase over the last 20 years or so in the intensity of extreme weather events around the globe.
The current rise of atmospheric CO2 at a rate of near-three parts per million per year exceeds rates recorded in the history of the atmosphere for the last 55 million years, which retards the ability of species to adapt to environmental change in time.
A consequent shift from conditions, which have allowed agriculture to take place from about 8,000 years ago, would render large parts of the continents unsuitable for cultivation.
hardly an acknowledgement that global warming doesnt exist. ( only 4% say its not real ) And those that believe its purely natural are in the minority.
Global warming exists sometimes, and at other times the globe cools down instead. The latest data shows there has been no warming for almost two decades.
Obviously the climate was still changing in other ways over the past two decades (as it has done for billions of years).
I think it's quite arrogant to claim that human CO2 emissions are now the dominant driver of climate change.
Human C02 emissions are a tiny fraction of total greenhouse gases.
So the global warming alarmists would have us believe that somehow our miniscule contribution to greenhouse gas now trumps all the things that used to cause climate change for billions of years? All those things are no longer relevant, because a tiny human contribution to greenhouse gas will just cause the globe to keep warming up regardless? I don't think so. It makes no logical sense, and it's not borne out by the data, which shows no further warming for almost two decades despite human CO2 emissions continuing to rise.
The global warming alarmists basically shot themselves in the foot when they said increased CO2 emissions must inevitably cause more global warming. They overestimated the effects of human CO2 emissions, and underestimated the effect of natural drivers.
Human activity may influence the climate in some way, but our influence is impossible to quantify, and it is likely to be pretty small compared to natural drivers.
Dave, here's a few scientists for you to shout at. Or would you call them internet nobodies? I'd say they'd know more about the subject than you, or are you claiming to have more expertise on the subject than them
TL;DR
Half of scientists say its mostly caused by humans, other half says its not
You's chosen which half you agree with, that's fine by me!
There's no evidence vaccines don't work, so that's a dumb analogy!
Btw Dave, I didn't say they didn't work, I said "There are a few scientists who don't accept their safety and claim that having them is more dangerous than not having them". When you're insulting people in a post, best not to invent things they didn't say, makes you look a bit dumb.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy