Spiritual Portal
Aug 19, 2019 09:40 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Daze of Heaven on Soundcloud
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Links Staff List Login Register  

Climate Change


Recent Items

Views: 5
Comments (0)
By: tides2dust

Views: 3
Comments (0)
By: tides2dust

Views: 2
Comments (0)
By: Steve Hydonus

Views: 4
Comments (0)
By: Steve Hydonus
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 64 times)
Steve Hydonus
Surrender Kitty
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 353
Online Online

Posts: 10029


Intereststs; Meditation/Spiritual Life


WWW
« Reply #15 on: Jun 10, 2015 12:50 am »

Steve,

Now, after having accepted that most climate scientist support anthropogenic warming, hence after havng implied the high degree of confidence of such an hypothesis, barring a collective delusion of most scientists, what are we going to do?

I think we agree that America and the developed countries should not declare war to India, Indonesia, China and Brasil if they refuse to cut their emissions.

First and for most acknowledge the problem. Second vote for people who are trying to make changes. Third make differences in our own personal life styles.

IMHO, I believe the 3rd point is the most important. To me it's the only point worthwhile.

yes because it is all mind and cosciousness that has created our present environment. We have the best tools of all to change it. ....The techniques that raise consciousness to new levels and consequently change the material realty we witness. There are outward things as well - car pooling, growing trees and plants limiting our consumption etc. But the inner dimensions create realities that benefit all humanity. Just the thought that the inner life is superior to the outer is a giant step in humanities evolution.... only a few of us are practicing it.

« Last Edit: Jun 10, 2015 12:59 am by Steve Hydonus » Report Spam   Logged

God Christ Gurus musical sample creations:
https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/stevehydonus
https://www.reverbnation.com/stevehydonus https://myspace.com/stevehydonus/music/songs<br />http://stevehydonus.googlepages.com/  (Personal website)<br />email:ombabaji@hotmail.com (For CD\'s
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1309


« Reply #16 on: Jul 08, 2015 05:25 pm »

Steve,
I carried out a fast research on the internet and it appears that most specific researchers support a human-related global warming.
Since it would take a huge amount of time to me to go into teh details, I'm going to settle presently with such consensus, barring further developments.

The contention that 97% of scientists support a human-related global warming has been challenged by soem reasonable arguments. I agree with the challenges, since the 97% number seemed too overwhelming for a topic which sure is not very clear to date. I refer to the anthtropogenic effect. Since geological and climate records prove that the climate has fluctuated wildly in the past, with warmings and coolings, how can we be so sure that the present effect is due to man? I have my doubts that it has been proved with reasonable certainty.
Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1309


« Reply #17 on: Jul 08, 2015 05:31 pm »

This si an exceprt from the Forbes site. Actually, the author supports fossil fuel use. I DO NOT agree on that, but he makes a point in underlining how comments on scinetific literature can be distorted. I'm simply against the MANIPULATION OF SCIENTIFIC DATA.
Whenever people have an agenda, they start manipulating the data. NO. Evidence, not manipulation, must speak.

Quote
How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.



Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
 —Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
 —Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
 —Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
 —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.
« Last Edit: Jul 08, 2015 05:33 pm by mccoy » Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1309


« Reply #18 on: Jul 08, 2015 08:10 pm »

There is a wiki voice:

Quote
Survey of scinteists' view on climate change

which seems to be pretty objective, although the chart on the upper right-hand side is misleading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change. I'll start from the most recent researches

Quote
Powell, 2013[edit]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[31] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32]

The above is pretty clear. Just a few rejected anthropogenic global warming. But that tells nothing. I do not reject it either. It can be true. But It can be untrue. It is simply a possibility, not proved.

One thing is to say that very few scientists reject the hypothesis, another thing is to say that almost all scientists are sure of that.
Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1309


« Reply #19 on: Jul 08, 2015 08:19 pm »

this is the controversial research, which is used to say that 97% of scientists endorse anthropogenic global warming. It results clear that the elaborations are pretty much confused and that the logic has been bent to serve the agenda of one strong supporter of anthropogenic GW. To begin with, the first sentence makes it clear that only 97% of 33.6% of scientific articles endorse the 'consensus position' of the anthropogenic effect.

97% of 33.6% is 32.6% and is a minority to all effects.. The so called consensus is not such.

Quote
John Cook et al., 2013[edit]

Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming....

However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:
The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’



Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1309


« Reply #20 on: Jul 08, 2015 08:22 pm »

Another recent researcH, according to which it is again clear that only 36% of the respondents endorse anthropogenic GW. This is a compatible figure to that calculated above.

Bottom line: scientists who endorse AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are the minority

Quote
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012[edit]

Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[23] Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[24]

The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analyzing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[23] 'Regulation activists' (10%) "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[23]

They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[23] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[24]
Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1309


« Reply #21 on: Jul 18, 2015 12:12 pm »

Unfortunately, when politics and vested interests seep into science, science itself becomes biased and looses all its credibility.

We laypeople are compelled to build our own view of the facts based on data which are often construed according to the benefits of the political groups.

Now, I myself am absolutely against the indiscriminate use of fossil fuels and absolutely favour the use of natural sources, I myself am thinking about applying photovoltaic panels on my house and producing myself my own electricity.

However, since I try to use my God-given logic, I just cannot ignore all the criticism to the supporters of AGW (anthropogenic global warming).

Such supporters appear to have lost most scientific objective balance and appear to cater undisriminately to the anti-lobbist tendencies, that is to oppose the supporters of fossil fuels just for the sake of it.

It should not be for the sake of it, it should be done with absolute objectivity.

For example, why should we go on being dependent on oil & gas coming from the middle east and Arab countries? We keep being blackmailable this way.

And keep being subject to the whims of the large distributors of energy.

We cannot try to bend scientific evidence just to fight the claims of the oil companies. Figthing the powerful lobbies must be done with intelligence.

Maybe this became a war where all farness has been lost but I would rather say that people cannot but benefit from adopting natural sources of energy, regardless of the fact whether the global warming is really caused by the anthropogenic influence or not. And, just in case that there really is a significant antrhopogenic influence, for the precautionary principle, we might as well start to adopt natural sources of energy, in such a way to minimize the impact on the economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10340408/Climate-change-this-is-not-science-its-mumbo-jumbo.html
« Last Edit: Jul 18, 2015 12:13 pm by mccoy » Report Spam   Logged
Steve Hydonus
Surrender Kitty
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 353
Online Online

Posts: 10029


Intereststs; Meditation/Spiritual Life


WWW
« Reply #22 on: Mar 21, 2019 06:32 pm »

https://apple.news/AFCpN9J_sRwGo9Zmz-zue0Q
Report Spam   Logged

God Christ Gurus musical sample creations:
https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/stevehydonus
https://www.reverbnation.com/stevehydonus https://myspace.com/stevehydonus/music/songs<br />http://stevehydonus.googlepages.com/  (Personal website)<br />email:ombabaji@hotmail.com (For CD\'s

Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy