2019 Non-Crows AFL Chat #3 - the off-season
- Thread starter hey shorty
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Yes, the former head of meteorology. If that is such an important role to you then what does the current head of meteorology at MIT think? Well he thinks there is overwhelming evidence in support of global warming.
Neither of us are climate scientists so both of us can spout "bland rhetoric" as much as we want. Ultimately current scientific consensus is in favour of global warming. Over 97% of climate scientists agree. And that is from ********** NASA!!
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.climate.nasa.gov
Tell me about the 97%
MatthewB
If the drinking lamp is lit, you should be too
- Sep 17, 2015
- 9,999
- 12,173
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- NY Yankees, Glenelg Adelaide Giants
I walked past him at the grand final last Sunday, yep he hasn't changed, must be the haircut
So why does the bmx club have to relocate then?
This, I like this version.
- Oct 3, 2003
- 26,916
- 30,910
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Soft spot for Brisbane
LOL - it's less embarassing for you when you make posts like this after people haven't just schooled you!
I don't believe the BMX club "has" to do anything. Thye may be looking to relocate for other reasons. Bigger venue and more space for themselves?
I was told they were told back in about 2015 they had 5-6 years to find another location.
majors rd was the location they were looking at but need to raise funds for a slip lane.
Possibly, but i was still living in WA in 2015, so may have missed that
Cove Soccer have been looking for a suitable new ground to play at since 2015 too, but nothing has ever been feasible for them due to soil issues etc
- Moderator
- #5,586
Jaidyn Stephenson in the Longest Kick - you bet he can kick it long, if the price is right
It's a figure arrived at after a survey of peer-reviewed research articles by scientists working in the field. Of the several thousand of these papers that took a definitive position on the cause of global warming, 97% attributed it to human activity.
This survey is supported by several other independent studies, which show this figure to be between 90 and 100%.
This paper summarises and evaluates the findings of these studies if you're interested.
Tellingly, if you adjust the survey sample to only include the most qualified and experienced (based on body of work in the field) climate scientists, the level of consensus increases. In other words, there is a clear, significant correlation between expertise in climate science and an acceptance that this climate crisis is driven primarily or entirely by humans.
Meanwhile, Lindzen's collection of (far fewer) signatures is padded, as other posters have shown, with non-experts and even non-scientists. But sure, that's most definitely a more significant piece of evidence here. Screw the thousands of other contributors to IPCC research reports and the conclusions of the actual report you noted as evidence of Lindzhen's expertise; screw NASA climate data. It's this one guy you'll be hitching your wagon to! You are truly a master of critical thinking!
I don't visit here much anymore because I don't often have a lot of time to waste reading nonsense from angry, middle-aged trolls like yourself. As someone who isn't due to die before the worst of the predicted consequences of climate change eventuate, however, I do feel obliged to clear up a few things about the unjustifiably irrational nonsense you, and the clowns agreeing with your posts, apparently believe. Not to convince you, because, as we've all seen time and time again, once your prejudices have led you to a conclusion, all the evidence and logical reasoning in the world won't sway you. No, I'm just hoping those who haven't taken the time to stay informed won't waste their time reading the bullshit you've written about this particularly important topic.
This isn't an issue that has been hijacked by "woke Millenials" or even Greta Thunberg (who, for the record, isn't representing herself as someone who fully understands the science - she is simply taking the very reasonable position that perhaps we should listen to the people who do!). It was hijacked long ago by certain politicians, multinational companies and partisan media agencies almost all of whom have one thing in common: they directly profit or personally benefit from the sale of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, they managed to convince enough village-idiots like yourself that this issue had some sort of significant debate surrounding it within the scientific community, and so we're now in position that the changes that we as a species must be making, are simply not being made fast enough to save us. Nice job! I suppose you also agree with the top scientists of the reputable Philip Morris group who told us all that smoking is great for your health!
How does this relate to footy? Well, A: Sam Newman is pathetic hypocrite, and B: given what the IPCC has predicted for Australia's rainfall in the upcoming decades (hint: far, far more irregular, leading to periods of intense drought, broken by intense rainfall resulting in wide-spread flooding), we might be struggling to keep grass on our ovals moving forward.
Go Giants.
Not to mention we haven’t been in an El Niño cycle for a long time and experiencing drought, I hate to think how things will be when we are in the middle of an El Niño cycle in the near future
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
Is it unreasonable to consider strong links to vested interests when assessing the weight to put on outlier opinions?
- Dec 29, 2000
- 23,717
- 21,017
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Was this ever in doubt?
- Dec 29, 2000
- 23,717
- 21,017
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The problem is that it’s an issue that had been politicised behind the reach of the science behind it.
What’s worse is you have a bunch of woke millennials who blindly parrot everything they hear to seem even more woke in the woke olympics
Consider this: 500 of the worlds most eminent scientists wrote to the UN to have a depoliticised debate on the subject
‘No Climate Emergency’: MIT Climate Expert, 500 Prominent Global Experts Write In Letter To UN
By Pierre Gosselin In a letter to Secretary General Guterres, 500 scientists are now requesting that the UN end the hysteria and return to rational dialogue. ================================…www.climatedepot.com
Letter 1
Your Excellencies,
There is no climate emergency
A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.
The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.
We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.
We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.
We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. The meeting will give effect to the sound and ancient principle no less of sound science than of natural justice that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!
Please let us know your thoughts about such a joint meeting.
Letter 2
There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate polities should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crop worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.
Policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.
Our advice to political leaders is that science should strive for a significantly better understanding of the climate system, while politics should focus on minimizing potential climate damage by prioritizing adaptation strategies based on proven and affordable technologies.
The undersigned ECD Ambassadors
But yes let’s all listen to a ******* school girl
Really, who are this scientists - perhaps wait and see.
Yes, CO2 is required for plants but it isn’t that simplistic.
Come the middle of this century, those still living (and I’ll guarantee most of this 500 will be dead and buried) will b3 saying what the * were they thinking.
Climate deniers belong with the flat earthers.
He’s in
Flat earthers are also a modern phenomenon.
People becoming scared of people they think know more than they do.
When are the odds out for the 2020 season ?
MatthewB
If the drinking lamp is lit, you should be too
- Sep 17, 2015
- 9,999
- 12,173
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- NY Yankees, Glenelg Adelaide Giants
R5 Winning Edge (bm78) betting odds - Horses - Aus/NZ | Sportsbet
View the latest odds & place a bet on R5 Winning Edge (bm78) with Sportsbet. Sign up with Australia's Favourite Online Betting and Entertainment Website.
www.sportsbet.com.au
That’s all very general, and dare I say hopeful.
Firstly no one even says that 97% of scientists agree there is a climate emergency
The story, insofar as it is alleged to be true, is that 97% believe climate change is at least partly anthropogenic
[/i] however the 97% that people like you just lap up is bogus.
Let’s look at where it came from, which woke numpties like you have never bothered to consider.
(1)
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists andhad “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 79 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
(2)
A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.
And finally (3)
the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sandand creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!
When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
Now I’m not denying climate change, or anything like that.
I am sceptical of this climate emergency angle.
There are real questions about the quality of the models and their ability to predict effectively enough to drive policy to he extent they are being relied upon
climate emergency is pure politics.
Those studies that don’t fit the narrative seem to sink without a trace
And then there is the professor Phil Jones scandal...
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
