The Scientific Debate On Global Warming In One Chart

The next time someone tries to tell you that there’s a legitimate scientific debate about man-made global warming, point them to this chart.

It was created by James Powell, an MIT-trained geochemist, longtime Oberlin professor, and former member of the National Science Board (under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush). He searched for all studies published in 2013 that mentioned “global warming,” “global climate change,” or “climate change,” and found 10,885 of them.

Powell combed through the papers and found only two that rejected the idea that humans are responsible for climate change.

more…

Unfortunately, we seem prone to putting those from the ‘ideology and arm-waving’ camp into government and other powerful positions.

The split is 99.99-0.01%. That’s pretty damning.

It’s all very well, but until it’s all translated into Chinese anf the various Indian languages, it’s irrelevant.

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Scientific Debate On Global Warming In One Chart

The next time someone tries to tell you that there’s a legitimate scientific debate about man-made global warming, point them to this chart.

It was created by James Powell, an MIT-trained geochemist, longtime Oberlin professor, and former member of the National Science Board (under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush). He searched for all studies published in 2013 that mentioned “global warming,” “global climate change,” or “climate change,” and found 10,885 of them.

Powell combed through the papers and found only two that rejected the idea that humans are responsible for climate change.

more…

The trouble is, the Unsceptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists just leeeerve this sort of thing because they can pick holes in the analysis, and then pretend that that’s evidence that climate change is all a beat up that no sensible person would worry about.

We should recognise that the scientific debate about the magnitude and effects of climate change is on-going, and this is a very strong argument in favour of adopting a cautious approach in control of GHG emissions, because it is quite possible that the effects will be worse than the consensus estimate.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Scientific Debate On Global Warming In One Chart

The next time someone tries to tell you that there’s a legitimate scientific debate about man-made global warming, point them to this chart.

It was created by James Powell, an MIT-trained geochemist, longtime Oberlin professor, and former member of the National Science Board (under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush). He searched for all studies published in 2013 that mentioned “global warming,” “global climate change,” or “climate change,” and found 10,885 of them.

Powell combed through the papers and found only two that rejected the idea that humans are responsible for climate change.

more…

The trouble is, the Unsceptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists just leeeerve this sort of thing because they can pick holes in the analysis, and then pretend that that’s evidence that climate change is all a beat up that no sensible person would worry about.

We should recognise that the scientific debate about the magnitude and effects of climate change is on-going, and this is a very strong argument in favour of adopting a cautious approach in control of GHG emissions, because it is quite possible that the effects will be worse than the consensus estimate.

ie:

- Thank you for that finding – it is for sure a proof that “global warming” is a very interesting theme.

It may show that there are many publications with the term “global warming” in it.
Not more, and not less – when you read the description of his method.
But what does that have to do with science?

Does he say anything about the results of those publications? What is “global warming” coming from?
For me, his study is just a proof that “global warming” is a popular theme in the media and research.
Nothing else, I’m afraid.

Maybe there are many studies about earthquakes, too – but what do we know?

We are still seeking for a cause that is responsible for a possible climate change.

Science will find an answer soon, hopefully!

As, i’ve said, until we can convince the average Chinese slaveowner manufacturer that the future of the planet is more important than them getting a new Mercedes S-class, it’s all just chin-music.

Isn’t it sort of within the range of common sense, or ‘good sense’ perhaps, based on population, fuel burned etc to go to ‘it’s highly likely’, so really it’s a question of how bad it is going to be and how things pan out over time given this or that.

I mean soon as you cut the grass in your yard or knock a tree down the climate on the ground and around that area changes. In fact just pruning a tree changes things.

I think there’s a paradox about the modern world, probably reflective of other paradoxes regards what motivates the human species. Our endeavours make the world smaller.

What is emerging is a hyperprolific higher species (conscious apparently), that being us humans.

The trouble I believe is that sex is mostly for reproduction (that’s the thrust of its purpose), so what’s maybe needed is a more recreational activity. Things have evolved that may tend us to feel sex is recreational, but I am not sure of that as it seems to guarantee a steady stream of death.

Humans I think need to develop an appreciation of the never-to-be-born-unborn. What could have been that never will be physically realized, and point their envies in that direction.

For this sort of thing to work a family may have one child, and have three also given names that will never be of this immediate physical world. There wont be any education costs or earthly worries that come with these special children, they can be anything.

I really can’t see any other way.

transition said:

Isn’t it sort of within the range of common sense, or ‘good sense’ perhaps, based on population, fuel burned etc to go to ‘it’s highly likely’, so really it’s a question of how bad it is going to be and how things pan out over time given this or that.

I mean soon as you cut the grass in your yard or knock a tree down the climate on the ground and around that area changes. In fact just pruning a tree changes things.

I think there’s a paradox about the modern world, probably reflective of other paradoxes regards what motivates the human species. Our endeavours make the world smaller.

What is emerging is a hyperprolific higher species (conscious apparently), that being us humans.

The trouble I believe is that sex is mostly for reproduction (that’s the thrust of its purpose), so what’s maybe needed is a more recreational activity. Things have evolved that may tend us to feel sex is recreational, but I am not sure of that as it seems to guarantee a steady stream of death.

Humans I think need to develop an appreciation of the never-to-be-born-unborn. What could have been that never will be physically realized, and point their envies in that direction.

For this sort of thing to work a family may have one child, and have three also given names that will never be of this immediate physical world. There wont be any education costs or earthly worries that come with these special children, they can be anything.

I really can’t see any other way.

Well I stuck to two children. The problem is, we are all still alive; parents, children and their children.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

Isn’t it sort of within the range of common sense, or ‘good sense’ perhaps, based on population, fuel burned etc to go to ‘it’s highly likely’, so really it’s a question of how bad it is going to be and how things pan out over time given this or that.

I mean soon as you cut the grass in your yard or knock a tree down the climate on the ground and around that area changes. In fact just pruning a tree changes things.

I think there’s a paradox about the modern world, probably reflective of other paradoxes regards what motivates the human species. Our endeavours make the world smaller.

What is emerging is a hyperprolific higher species (conscious apparently), that being us humans.

The trouble I believe is that sex is mostly for reproduction (that’s the thrust of its purpose), so what’s maybe needed is a more recreational activity. Things have evolved that may tend us to feel sex is recreational, but I am not sure of that as it seems to guarantee a steady stream of death.

Humans I think need to develop an appreciation of the never-to-be-born-unborn. What could have been that never will be physically realized, and point their envies in that direction.

For this sort of thing to work a family may have one child, and have three also given names that will never be of this immediate physical world. There wont be any education costs or earthly worries that come with these special children, they can be anything.

I really can’t see any other way.

Well I stuck to two children. The problem is, we are all still alive; parents, children and their children.

Which is why reducing the world’s population is such a long-term event and very uncertain due to the possible variables.

> The Scientific Debate On Global Warming In One Chart
> The next time someone tries to tell you that there’s a legitimate scientific debate about man-made global warming, point them to this chart.

That’s only the first step. The next step is:
2) Is anthropogenic global warming a good thing or a bad thing?

The following step is:
3) If anthropogenic global warming is a bad thing, how much money is it worth throwing at it to fix it?

The step after that is:
4) How successful have measures taken so far to stop anthropogenic global warming been?

My answer to 4) would be sweet FA.

mollwollfumble said:

> The Scientific Debate On Global Warming In One Chart
> The next time someone tries to tell you that there’s a legitimate scientific debate about man-made global warming, point them to this chart.

That’s only the first step. The next step is:
2) Is anthropogenic global warming a good thing or a bad thing?

The following step is:
3) If anthropogenic global warming is a bad thing, how much money is it worth throwing at it to fix it?

The step after that is:
4) How successful have measures taken so far to stop anthropogenic global warming been?

My answer to 4) would be sweet FA.

You didn’t answer the third one properly. Unless of course your grandchildren don’t need a life.

poikilotherm, that was rather pathetic

The step after that is:
4) How successful have measures taken so far to stop anthropogenic global warming been?

My answer to 4) would be sweet FA.
——————————————————————

Indeed, and as ‘nearly said’ the measure to stop anthropogenic global warming is to do SFA.

But of course we wont, we will keep building, buying and breeding.

So the only sensible course is to plan for a future that is warmer and wetter.

The sooner the better.

My cynical view is already known: “To beat global warming walk faster than 1 centimetre per year.”

mollwollfumble said:

My cynical view is already known: “To beat global warming walk faster than 1 centimetre per year.”

Back in 1989 I owned a house that was only two metres above the high tide mark so sold it because of concerns over global warming. 25 years later it’s still two metres above the high tide mark.

mollwollfumble said:

My cynical view is already known: “To beat global warming walk faster than 1 centimetre per year.”

Upwards?

i was under the impression that the work on climate change was more about mitigation and preparation than actually halting it in the short term.

Boris said:

i was under the impression that the work on climate change was more about mitigation and preparation than actually halting it in the short term.

Most of the effort goes into arse-sitting.

i was under the impression that the work on climate change was more about mitigation and preparation than actually halting it in the short term.
————————————————

Yeah

Halting it? that is not possible, were we to spew more or less, it still adds to the total.

It’s like adding water to a bucket… doesn’t matter how slow the drip the bucket will still overflow.

Yes thats why they use the term mitigation. It is the only course.

Back in 1989 I owned a house that was only two metres above the high tide mark so sold it because of concerns over global warming. 25 years later it’s still two metres above the high tide mark.
————————————————-

Well that might just be because the sea level is rising at 1 or 2mm per year, but obviously land grows higher more quickly…

>Back in 1989 I owned a house that was only two metres above the high tide mark so sold it because of concerns over global warming. 25 years later it’s still two metres above the high tide mark.

Not the sole reason you sold it…..surely?

Mr Ironic said:

The step after that is:
4) How successful have measures taken so far to stop anthropogenic global warming been?

My answer to 4) would be sweet FA.
——————————————————————

Indeed, and as ‘nearly said’ the measure to stop anthropogenic global warming is to do SFA.

But of course we wont, we will keep building, buying and breeding.

So the only sensible course is to plan for a future that is warmer and wetter.

The sooner the better.

Don’t think it will be as simple as that.

Don’t think it will be as simple as that.
——————————————————

Well it is no more simple or complicated than it is.

It is the many ‘concerned’ voices that make it seem complicated.

Good luck not making a swift horse into a camel by a committee.

Camels of course are very good for wondering around deserts aimlessly.

Mr Ironic said:

Don’t think it will be as simple as that.
——————————————————

Well it is no more simple or complicated than it is.

It is the many ‘concerned’ voices that make it seem complicated.

Good luck not making a swift horse into a camel by a committee.

Camels of course are very good for wondering around deserts aimlessly.

You remind me of a fuckwit.