The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What exactly do 98% of climate researchers believe? > Comments

What exactly do 98% of climate researchers believe? : Comments

By Barry York, published 20/10/2014

Politicians, climate activists and influential Hollywood celebrities are misusing the 98% figure derived from studies to justify an alarmist point of view.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All
Dear Yuyutsu,
<<As you care for our planet's air, water, soil and species and want people to take you seriously, you should be the first to denounce that nonsense and remind people that there are REAL reasons for protecting this earth.>>
What are the REAL reasons you mention? As for being taken seriously, I thought everyone whose brains are not addled by supernatural belief systems understood that the universe and all that is in it has nothing to do with humans; we are irrelevant organisms that evolved in a particular organic ‘soup’, who are following the dictates of the type of evolution that produced us. This is the reason the wise words of clear-sighted people for millennia have been ignored - they’re aberrations, just as I am, so I have no delusions about being taken seriously. Like the goats that fight and eat all vegetation on an island and then starve to death, so we will fight to get and consume everything that can sustain us until we follow the same evolutionary path as the extinct animals that preceded us.
It only matters, as you suggest, to those with something to lose.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 21 October 2014 7:30:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point of the article is simply that if you survey only those who livelihoods are based on researching the effects of any subject, the odds are that a large number will feel that their area of research is valid.

I reckon that 98% of dentists feel that regular check ups are important.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 21 October 2014 9:47:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Barry York,

"....I do not have the necessary expertise to reach a conclusion on the science...."

Surprise, surprise....
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 21 October 2014 9:57:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ybgirp,

<<What are the REAL reasons you mention?>>

Exactly those that you did: "worldwide the air is toxic in most cities, the water is toxic in most rivers, lakes and ponds, Fisheries are fished out, soil quality is seriously degraded, we can't find anywhere to dispose of our waste that is rendering seas and estuaries and dumps deadly poisonous, the soil is toxic in most commercial food growing areas, commercially grown fruit and vegetables are covered in toxic spray residues"

These are all serious reasons - no need to supplement them with fairy-tales, or else the lot would be taken to be fairy-tales as well and ignored.

<<we are irrelevant organisms that evolved in a particular organic ‘soup’, who are following the dictates of the type of evolution that produced us.>>

This is a bit off-topic, but since your post was addressed to me, I must correct this error: we are not organisms, relevant or otherwise. The human organism which we currently wear has indeed evolved as you say, but we ourselves are not a product of evolution. Same when you mention "the extinct animals that preceded us": animals have preceded our human garments, but we have been eternally, never preceded by animals.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 21 October 2014 12:49:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This thread has the premise wrong.
Certainly alternative energy is important. However the objective is not to avoid
using fossil fuels but to transition to a new energy regime.
There is a major problem in making the change.
The EROI of new alternative energy systems are very poor.
I suggest you all read this;

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-03-21/alternative-energy-evaluating-our-options

Global warming has nothing to do with the problem.
It is a bootstrapping problem. We need all the industrial techniques and
processes we now have to make the transition.
Trying to make the transition by removing the fossil fuels first is destined to fail.
There is a further problem, having made the transition, can the EROI allow us to
maintain and expand the system ? Answer probably is we cannot.

Another thing the 98% we keep hearing about is a fraud.
The real figure turns out to be around 50%.
The other 48% did not make definite claims, just maybe, maybe not !
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 21 October 2014 1:26:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

I find your sarcasm at Barry's admission that he is no expert on the science amusing, considering that his knowledge is probably considerably more extensive than yours.

What has become abundantly clear over the past decade or so is that while science clearly points to a link between rising CO2 levels and increased atmospheric heat retention, the rates of global temperature rise and its consequences are far less easy to pin down.

Secondly, the left (who are generally technically far less equipped to grasp the concepts) have seized on global warming as a chance to impose vast social re engineering on society, as a quasi religion complete with high priests, official dogma and the burning of heretics.

Cries that "The science is settled" could only come from idiots with no knowledge of science. Science takes theory, formulates models and compares those models against real time measurements. The reality is that the models of the IPCC differ greatly from measured results. Until measured results compare reasonably closely with modelling, the modelling and the theories behind the modelling are incomplete and therefore the science is far from settled.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 21 October 2014 1:40:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy