True, I overstated that one. It's still quite a consensus.

Ha, no plastic.

Don't eat a hamburger patty then, also where do these 18000 gallons of water go, because surely given that McDonalds alone have sold an estimated 300 billion burgers, we'd see some reduction in sea level. I'm talking about eating locally, seasonally, and within your budget.

But stating 97% of 12,000 is exceptionally misleading.

cockbeard wrote:

Don't eat a hamburger patty then, also where do these 18000 gallons of water go, because surely given that McDonalds alone have sold an estimated 300 billion burgers, we'd see some reduction in sea level. I'm talking about eating locally, seasonally, and within your budget.

Eh? Seriously? The water cycle?

Exactly the water cycle, so why say it 'costs' 18000 gallons of water to make a burger patty

It's why the wife has a Brita filter.

Lord_Griff wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Just to recap, on the one hand we have 97% of 12,000 peer reviewed articles on climate change, on the other, 5 academics who feel that their articles were misrepresented in that study, a geologist, a biogeologist who doesn't dispute the fact he has no climate credentials, an economist and the Deceiver of the Year 1995 who believes that dowsing can be scientifically proven, but who refuses to do so under controlled conditions despite being offered a million dollars to do so. Tit for tat my arse.

Erm: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Yoss isn't it 32.63% of the 11,944 endorsed the consensus position?

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

Lord_Griff wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Just to recap, on the one hand we have 97% of 12,000 peer reviewed articles on climate change, on the other, 5 academics who feel that their articles were misrepresented in that study, a geologist, a biogeologist who doesn't dispute the fact he has no climate credentials, an economist and the Deceiver of the Year 1995 who believes that dowsing can be scientifically proven, but who refuses to do so under controlled conditions despite being offered a million dollars to do so. Tit for tat my arse.

Erm: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Yoss isn't it 32.63% of the 11,944 endorsed the consensus position?

I suspected there was a better view of that same study. Thanks, Griff*.

*Blimey... When have I ever written that?

Yes it's 97% of papers that express an opinion, their opinion is its happening and it's likely caused by humans. Those papers that don't have an opinion can't have their opinion analysed.

Edit: Pretty late with that one.

Outlaw wrote:

Roujin wrote:

equinox_code wrote:

Even if it's all made up, even if all these scientific experts are covering their backs and fishing for grants with their doomsday hypothes, even if all that is possibly true, what is the worst that could happen? We waste a lot of time/money cutting back on mindless consumption and pollution for the sake of nothing? I'd certainly take that over total population collapse and the end of a habitable planet.

THIS. THIS MULTIPLIED BY INFINITY MULTIPLIED BY THE KELVIN INVREASE IN GRIFFS HOT SPACE.

This is how I feel too. If climate scientists are right and we ignore them we're all dead and the planet is destroyed. If climate change deniers are right and we ignore them then we...just have different industries and business to before (ie renewable vs fossil fuel or whatever), but otherwise stuff mostly carries on as normal. Doesn't seem like such a hard choice.

Pascal's wager?

Pascal was a thicko.

dynamiteReady wrote:

And my question was, and still is, what is the correlate? Co2s? That's disputable, the chart makes that an easy challenge.

So to recap. You agree climate change is happening right now. You agree that it is happening very quickly. Correct?

So you've moved on to the third question, which was "are humans responsible for at least a significant amount of this recent change", and you have dodged it, and gone straight on to CO2. Whether CO2 has an effect on climate is utterly and totally indisputable. The greenhouse effect is a real thing, which keeps us alive, and frankly bugger off back to GSCE Science if you don't get that.

As for the chart somehow showing that CO2 is not a major, or the major factor in increased temperatures, I don't understand what you mean. It shows that the temperature has gone up and stayed up. There are questions over why it didn't continue to go up, and they have been addressed in various ways as has been pointed out to you. But in any case the chart provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever that CO2 is not a major factor in climate change. Next:

The birth rate is a strong one, but we haven't examined that yet.

I'm at a loss about this one. Why would birth rate have an effect on global climate? And how can you show (i.e.: not just conjecture or theorising, but actual evidence-based research) that this effect is real and more important than, say, CO2?

Agriculture is also a major one...

Um, agriculture is cited as a cause for climate change because DUM DUM DUUUUM it is responsible for vast amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Are you actually arguing against your self now?

And how do we set up 'controls' for lab work in an experiment performed on a living system? How do we know if this pattern of climate change has anything to do with us, and not an unknown cosmic phenomenon?  And how do we explain ice ages of the past? Do you think we may see another ice age in the future? There's still a great deal of dispute about the cause of the ice age, and that's in the benefit of hindsight...

What you are asking for is scientific research. Which is what has been done. And the best evidence, analysed by the best minds, has led to the conclusion that this time, humans are having a major effect. What I love about this is the dichotomy you seem unaware of: on the one hand, you demand a simple fact-based explanation for everything otherwise there will always be doubt. On the other: there can never be fact-based explanation because it's too complex man! brilliant, i mean brilliant rhetoric you should write for the daily telegraph.

What's wrong with asking questions aout the subject?  I'm trying to say that it's impossible to be certain about this, and that the intelligent thing to do, is to learn more...

There's nothing wrong with questions. And there's nothing wrong with doing research. You should take your own advice and actually read the science (NOT the telegraph). It is impossible to be certain about things in science, yes. What it is not impossible to be is pretty damn sure. Do you want to argue against a lot of scientists saying they are pretty damn sure? On what basis? With what evidence?

cockbeard wrote:

Pascal hedged his bets, less thicko, more pussy who should have had a little conviction A large problem is that we only started taking measurements at almost the exact same time we started rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 we place in the atmosphere. Is this situation reversible? How long before we see any benefits? Do we really give a fuck about future generations?

You've said this a few times, Vela has already corrected you - we have vast amounts of historical and pre-historical data on CO2 concentrations from ice cores, tree rings, geological records and so on. Not as accurate as sticking a filter paper in the air and saying ooh x ppm, but still valid.

DR man he's having a go at YOU not us. There is no fanaticism. There is adherence to the findings of the science. Your lack of adherence to this is strange because your alternatives are...what? Faith?