Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
109 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 15


  Reply # 1927804 1-Jan-2018 23:06
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

Technofreak:

 

I'm on the fence so far as climate change being primarily caused by mankind. There's too many variables.

 

 

There are too many variables, I agree. This is why I watched many climate change docos, and many anti climate change docos

 

The human intervention is a constant. Yes, the Earth will recover. In decades or tens of thousands of years when we are gone. Or we cold reduce emissions, target green tech. But that doesn't work selfishly and economically right now. Oil companies, votes, GDP. Th human race is unbelievably intelligent, but just as short sighted and stupid. Imagine if a cure came next week which gives us all a 300 year lifespan. THEN IT WOULD CHANGE

 

 

First off I personally have absolutely no doubt global warming is caused by man ... entirely ... in fact over 100%, as we should have been in a slight natural cooling trend.  Man's contribution to CO2 levels is proven by carbon dating since fossilised carbon has less of the relevant C13 isotope.  The accumulated CO2 (since the industrial revolution) matches what is expected from the burnt fuels (chemically) as does the subsequent change in O2 needed for combustion. 

 

Although some CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans, additional atmospheric CO2 (a greenhouse gas) causes added heating due to absorbing some parts of the infrared emissions spectrum from the Earth's warm surface.  The Earth balances the small drop in heat loss by raising the surface temperature accordingly to increase radiative emissions.  Because radiative heat follows a 4th power function with temperature the negative feedback is strong, but reaching thermal equilibrium takes at least a decade.  If we stopped burning all FFs tomorrow, we would need a decade plus to see temps stabilise.

 

By measuring the average global surface temperature we know that there is a slow warming trend over decades, which has long been termed Global Warming.  That does not in any way imply there is warming in any local area nor does it have anything to do with climate or weather.  It's only used to characterise a change in surface heating which has to be explained somehow, and increasing CO2 levels fit the observations far better than any other possibility.

 

 

 

Global warming causes Climate Change, which is not unlike turning up the heat under a pot of boiling water, causing a higher level of chaotic turbulence.  Climate Change means "change".  It does not imply warming or cooling in any local areas.  However, there is substantial statistical evidence that some extreme weather events are the result of what climate change might do.  The cold weather over North America right now absolutely reeks of being amplified by low Arctic sea ice.

 

I've never seen a "anti"climate change doco from a reputable source.  The few I've stumbled on accidentally are either from crackpots (Lord Monckton) or are politically-motivated, or from an oil industry-motivated think tank.  If it isn't a lecture at a well-known university by a well-known climate scientist I wouldn't waste my time.  I've watched nearly a hundred and the presentations are very consistent.  This one below covers most or all of what I mentioned above.  It's long and might be boring in parts but what do you expect?

 

As for the other comments above, there isn't enough time in the evening to answer everything but note humans are really pretty stupid.  We know damn well what is happening and have been slow to react.  Given that CO2 is the lowest energy form of carbon and is a gas, there is unlikely to be any technology developed that could scale up to remove and sequester the 40 G tonnes a year required, never mind bring the levels down.  See Dr. James Hansen's comments for that one.  It is relatively easier to stop using fossil fuels entirely than hope a technology comes along that no one currently has any idea how to do.  If you know, sign up for your Nobel Prize in Physics now.

 

The Earth will take many millenia, perhaps hundreds, to bring back the CO2 levels naturally to an ideal 180 to 250 ppm, just as it has in the past.  But once methane-based positive feedbacks cut loose we will likely lose any control we might have.  That is how the Earth has behaved in the past, basically like a bistable flip-flop, bouncing between hot and cold.

 

The Reverse Keeling Curve: Prof Jeff Severinghaus (May 2016 Lecture)

 

 




569 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127


  Reply # 1927812 2-Jan-2018 01:56
Send private message quote this post

kingdragonfly: Let me use a simple analogy.

You're woken by a fire alarm in a hotel, but you don't see any evidence of a fire.

You could either ignore the fire alarm, assume everything's OK. The best thing that happens is you live, the worst thing that happens is you die.

Or you could take action, get out of bed, and leave the hotel. The best thing that can happen is you're likely to survive. The worst thing that could happen is you were too slow, you die, but at least you tried.

So if we ignore what 99% of scientist say and assume climate change is a hoax, the best outcome is nothing happens. The worst is a run-away greenhouse affect that turns wipes out most life, turning the Earth into Venus-like hell.

Well, do you react to the smoke alarm, or not?

 



Two questions...

1. Who (in this debate) is saying human caused global climate change is a hoax?

 

2. If 99% of scientists say the current 'climate change' is being caused by humans, can you please provide me with a list of the names of all 99% of scientists that say these things?

With a percentage like that there must be somewhere a list of names you have access to of all the scientists in the world (100%) and that 99% of them are saying what you have just claimed they are saying.

It's unverifiable/unprovable claims like this about human caused climate change that most often make me a sceptic. 

 

IOW (and IMHO) Unfortunately, although your comment that 99% of scientists agree humans are causing climate change is indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.


 
 
 
 


252 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23


  Reply # 1927888 2-Jan-2018 07:44
Send private message quote this post

MaxLV:

kingdragonfly: Let me use a simple analogy.

You're woken by a fire alarm in a hotel, but you don't see any evidence of a fire.

You could either ignore the fire alarm, assume everything's OK. The best thing that happens is you live, the worst thing that happens is you die.

Or you could take action, get out of bed, and leave the hotel. The best thing that can happen is you're likely to survive. The worst thing that could happen is you were too slow, you die, but at least you tried.

So if we ignore what 99% of scientist say and assume climate change is a hoax, the best outcome is nothing happens. The worst is a run-away greenhouse affect that turns wipes out most life, turning the Earth into Venus-like hell.

Well, do you react to the smoke alarm, or not?




Two questions...

1. Who (in this debate) is saying human caused global climate change is a hoax?


2. If 99% of scientists say the current 'climate change' is being caused by humans, can you please provide me with a list of the names of all 99% of scientists that say these things?

With a percentage like that there must be somewhere a list of names you have access to of all the scientists in the world (100%) and that 99% of them are saying what you have just claimed they are saying.

It's unverifiable/unprovable claims like this about human caused climate change that most often make me a sceptic. 


IOW (and IMHO) Unfortunately, although your comment that 99% of scientists agree humans are causing climate change is indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.



The list is a bit of an unreasonable request, qualifying the percentage in support by using statistics from those that have put forward a position on the topic is more achievable, e.g. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 226


  Reply # 1927889 2-Jan-2018 07:54
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Here's a simple graph.

The more you know about climate science, the more likely you are to believe in human caused global warming.

Conversely, the more ignorant you are about climate science, the more likely you are skeptical.



99% may be an exaggeration; 97% overall is more likely.

Does the percentage really matter?

If most the climate scientist are wrong, we would have spent time and money incorrectly.

Weigh that against if they correct, and life ends as we know it.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

4858 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 934

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1927891 2-Jan-2018 07:57
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

MaxLV:

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/scientists-warn-mini-ice-age-that-could-hit-earth-freeze-major-rivers-by-2030-754819

 

 

 

And this is why I'm so sceptical about Climate Change/Global Warming...
Scientists run numerous 'computer models' that say the Earth is 'heating up dangerously'.
Then some other scientists run their computer models, that say the earth is in imminent danger of freezing!

 

Wait, haven't I heard this all before? Why yes, scientists claimed in the 1970s - 1980s that the Earth was facing an imminent ice age...

 

 

Overall the planet is getting warmer and it is due to humans adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. 

There is no credible evidence to support anything else. 

I'm in Ottawa, Canada right now. That's at 45 degrees North latitude. This morning it was -26C. But on the shores of the Arctic Ocean at 69.44 degrees North latitude it was "only' -18C in Tuktoyaktuk. For the past several weeks I have been watching, Canada's Arctic has been significantly warmer than places thousands of kms to the south.  

 

The story makes it clear the scientist hopes that the Sun *possibly* producing less heat energy for 20-30 years would at best buy time to deal with the human-caused warming. 

There is no lack of clarity here around human-caused climate change. It's real and happening. Did you read the entire article before posting?  





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet




569 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127


  Reply # 1927957 2-Jan-2018 09:28
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

rhy7s:
MaxLV:

 

kingdragonfly: Let me use a simple analogy.

You're woken by a fire alarm in a hotel, but you don't see any evidence of a fire.

You could either ignore the fire alarm, assume everything's OK. The best thing that happens is you live, the worst thing that happens is you die.

Or you could take action, get out of bed, and leave the hotel. The best thing that can happen is you're likely to survive. The worst thing that could happen is you were too slow, you die, but at least you tried.

So if we ignore what 99% of scientist say and assume climate change is a hoax, the best outcome is nothing happens. The worst is a run-away greenhouse affect that turns wipes out most life, turning the Earth into Venus-like hell.

Well, do you react to the smoke alarm, or not?

 

 

 



Two questions...

1. Who (in this debate) is saying human caused global climate change is a hoax?

 

 

 

2. If 99% of scientists say the current 'climate change' is being caused by humans, can you please provide me with a list of the names of all 99% of scientists that say these things?

With a percentage like that there must be somewhere a list of names you have access to of all the scientists in the world (100%) and that 99% of them are saying what you have just claimed they are saying.

It's unverifiable/unprovable claims like this about human caused climate change that most often make me a sceptic. 

 

 

 

IOW (and IMHO) Unfortunately, although your comment that 99% of scientists agree humans are causing climate change is indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.

 



The list is a bit of an unreasonable request, qualifying the percentage in support by using statistics from those that have put forward a position on the topic is more achievable, e.g. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

 

 

So is claiming '99% of scientists say' is a bit of an unreasonable claim to make without the data (list of all scientists, and the 99% who say...) to back up such a claim.

Just as you can provide a link to back up this statistic, I can provide a link to show that a percentage of scientists disagree with this 99% consensus statistic. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

How is that any resolution to the fundamental problem that climate science has degenerated into little more than a we say/they say 'percentage competition?

I dont know about you, but I was always taught science is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of provable, verifiable facts, something that current scientific understanding of how the planets global warming and it's causes is a long way from achieving. We just dont know with any scientific certainty what causes global warming and cooling. 

Sure I could believe as 'a percentage of scientists' say X about the reasons for climate change so it must be true. But then I see another percentage of scientist say, hang on a minute that's not necessarily right or true, I'm expected to believe the yay group of scientists because it's a higher percentage than those that are saying nay? That's no way to reach any understanding about climate change causes, and it's certainly not science.

 

Then there's the often made stupid claim that science contrarians (scientists especially) must have vested interests, or they're being paid by vested interests to disagree with 'the consensus'. Some may be. sure, some may not be. Just like some pro climate change scientists have vested interests, or are being paid by vested interests to agree with and promote the consensus. They've all got to get funding to do their research from somewhere dont they. 

And when the funding/vested interest arguments fail, we get the 'they're not qualified to make claims about climate change because they're not climate scientists' objection. Seriously how can anyone make such a stupid claim?

 

I'm not a climate scientist, and a very much doubt that anyone in this 'debate' on Geek zone is. So applying the above claim so loved by human climate change advocates to this discussion, I'd say we're all disqualified from saying anything at all about climate change...   

 

So... I'm still a skeptic.   



 




569 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127


  Reply # 1927958 2-Jan-2018 09:36
Send private message quote this post

kingdragonfly: Here's a simple graph.

The more you know about climate science, the more likely you are to believe in human caused global warming.

Conversely, the more ignorant you are about climate science, the more likely you are skeptical.



99% may be an exaggeration; 97% overall is more likely.

Does the percentage really matter?

If most the climate scientist are wrong, we would have spent time and money incorrectly.

Weigh that against if they correct, and life ends as we know it.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm


As I said in my other post:

 

How is that any resolution to the fundamental problem that climate science has degenerated into little more than a we say/they say 'percentage competition? 

 


I dont know about you, but I was always taught science is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of provable, verifiable facts, something that current scientific understanding of how the planets global warming and it's causes is a long way from achieving. We just dont know with any scientific certainty what causes global warming and cooling. 

Sure I could believe as 'a percentage of scientists' say X about the reasons for climate change so it must be true. But then I see another percentage of scientist say, hang on a minute that's not necessarily right or true, I'm expected to believe the yay group of scientists because it's a higher percentage than those that are saying nay? That's no way to reach any understanding about climate change causes, and it's certainly not science.

 

Still a skeptic...

 

 




569 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127


Reply # 1927964 2-Jan-2018 09:41
Send private message quote this post

Linuxluver:

 

MaxLV:

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/scientists-warn-mini-ice-age-that-could-hit-earth-freeze-major-rivers-by-2030-754819

 

 

 

And this is why I'm so sceptical about Climate Change/Global Warming...
Scientists run numerous 'computer models' that say the Earth is 'heating up dangerously'.
Then some other scientists run their computer models, that say the earth is in imminent danger of freezing!

 

Wait, haven't I heard this all before? Why yes, scientists claimed in the 1970s - 1980s that the Earth was facing an imminent ice age...

 

 

Overall the planet is getting warmer and it is due to humans adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. 

There is no credible evidence to support anything else. 

I'm in Ottawa, Canada right now. That's at 45 degrees North latitude. This morning it was -26C. But on the shores of the Arctic Ocean at 69.44 degrees North latitude it was "only' -18C in Tuktoyaktuk. For the past several weeks I have been watching, Canada's Arctic has been significantly warmer than places thousands of kms to the south.  

 

The story makes it clear the scientist hopes that the Sun *possibly* producing less heat energy for 20-30 years would at best buy time to deal with the human-caused warming. 

There is no lack of clarity here around human-caused climate change. It's real and happening. Did you read the entire article before posting?  

 

 

Unfortunately, although your reply is indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.

 

 

 


10277 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3172

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1927965 2-Jan-2018 09:41
Send private message quote this post

MaxLV:

rhy7s:
MaxLV:


kingdragonfly: Let me use a simple analogy.

You're woken by a fire alarm in a hotel, but you don't see any evidence of a fire.

You could either ignore the fire alarm, assume everything's OK. The best thing that happens is you live, the worst thing that happens is you die.

Or you could take action, get out of bed, and leave the hotel. The best thing that can happen is you're likely to survive. The worst thing that could happen is you were too slow, you die, but at least you tried.

So if we ignore what 99% of scientist say and assume climate change is a hoax, the best outcome is nothing happens. The worst is a run-away greenhouse affect that turns wipes out most life, turning the Earth into Venus-like hell.

Well, do you react to the smoke alarm, or not?


 




Two questions...

1. Who (in this debate) is saying human caused global climate change is a hoax?


 


2. If 99% of scientists say the current 'climate change' is being caused by humans, can you please provide me with a list of the names of all 99% of scientists that say these things?

With a percentage like that there must be somewhere a list of names you have access to of all the scientists in the world (100%) and that 99% of them are saying what you have just claimed they are saying.

It's unverifiable/unprovable claims like this about human caused climate change that most often make me a sceptic. 


 


IOW (and IMHO) Unfortunately, although your comment that 99% of scientists agree humans are causing climate change is indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.




The list is a bit of an unreasonable request, qualifying the percentage in support by using statistics from those that have put forward a position on the topic is more achievable, e.g. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


 


So is claiming '99% of scientists say' is a bit of an unreasonable claim to make without the data (list of all scientists, and the 99% who say...) to back up such a claim.

Just as you can provide a link to back up this statistic, I can provide a link to show that a percentage of scientists disagree with this 99% consensus statistic. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

How is that any resolution to the fundamental problem that climate science has degenerated into little more than a we say/they say 'percentage competition?

I dont know about you, but I was always taught science is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of provable, verifiable facts, something that current scientific understanding of how the planets global warming and it's causes is a long way from achieving. We just dont know with any scientific certainty what causes global warming and cooling. 

Sure I could believe as 'a percentage of scientists' say X about the reasons for climate change so it must be true. But then I see another percentage of scientist say, hang on a minute that's not necessarily right or true, I'm expected to believe the yay group of scientists because it's a higher percentage than those that are saying nay? That's no way to reach any understanding about climate change causes, and it's certainly not science.


Then there's the often made stupid claim that science contrarians (scientists especially) must have vested interests, or they're being paid by vested interests to disagree with 'the consensus'. Some may be. sure, some may not be. Just like some pro climate change scientists have vested interests, or are being paid by vested interests to agree with and promote the consensus. They've all got to get funding to do their research from somewhere dont they. 

And when the funding/vested interest arguments fail, we get the 'they're not qualified to make claims about climate change because they're not climate scientists' objection. Seriously how can anyone make such a stupid claim?


I'm not a climate scientist, and a very much doubt that anyone in this 'debate' on Geek zone is. So applying the above claim so loved by human climate change advocates to this discussion, I'd say we're all disqualified from saying anything at all about climate change...   


So... I'm still a skeptic.   



 



Humans are very consensus driven in the modern age. Holding different opinions on a range of issues from the Accepted View is increasingly likely to cause the holder grief - even as far as being accused of a crime in some jurisdictions in Europe.





gzt

9256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1318


  Reply # 1927967 2-Jan-2018 09:44
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

I'll go with Stephen Hawking's assement.



569 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127


  Reply # 1927971 2-Jan-2018 09:52
Send private message quote this post

Geektastic:
MaxLV:

 

So is claiming '99% of scientists say' is a bit of an unreasonable claim to make without the data (list of all scientists, and the 99% who say...) to back up such a claim.

Just as you can provide a link to back up this statistic, I can provide a link to show that a percentage of scientists disagree with this 99% consensus statistic. 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

How is that any resolution to the fundamental problem that climate science has degenerated into little more than a we say/they say 'percentage competition?

I dont know about you, but I was always taught science is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of provable, verifiable facts, something that current scientific understanding of how the planets global warming and it's causes is a long way from achieving. We just dont know with any scientific certainty what causes global warming and cooling. 

Sure I could believe as 'a percentage of scientists' say X about the reasons for climate change so it must be true. But then I see another percentage of scientist say, hang on a minute that's not necessarily right or true, I'm expected to believe the yay group of scientists because it's a higher percentage than those that are saying nay? That's no way to reach any understanding about climate change causes, and it's certainly not science.

 

 

 

Then there's the often made stupid claim that science contrarians (scientists especially) must have vested interests, or they're being paid by vested interests to disagree with 'the consensus'. Some may be. sure, some may not be. Just like some pro climate change scientists have vested interests, or are being paid by vested interests to agree with and promote the consensus. They've all got to get funding to do their research from somewhere dont they. 

And when the funding/vested interest arguments fail, we get the 'they're not qualified to make claims about climate change because they're not climate scientists' objection. Seriously how can anyone make such a stupid claim?

 

I'm not a climate scientist, and a very much doubt that anyone in this 'debate' on Geek zone is. So applying the above claim so loved by human climate change advocates to this discussion, I'd say we're all disqualified from saying anything at all about climate change...   

 

So... I'm still a skeptic.   

 




Humans are very consensus driven in the modern age. Holding different opinions on a range of issues from the Accepted View is increasingly likely to cause the holder grief - even as far as being accused of a crime in some jurisdictions in Europe.

 

I agree with you 100% that humans are consensus driven. I guess that makes us part of an 'in' group huh. That is until a bigger group that disagree with us comes along. (I guess...)

 

Fortunately science isn't a matter of consensus.

 

 


11504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5211

Trusted

  Reply # 1927973 2-Jan-2018 10:04
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

My brother in law is a climate scientist at NIWA. I have talk with him many times and he tells me climate change is real, it's accelerating and it scares the pants off him. He believes everyone needs to wake up and act now as time is running out fast. He says anyone that denies now in face of the avalanche of evidence is akin to a flat earther.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


gzt

9256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1318


  Reply # 1927974 2-Jan-2018 10:05
Send private message quote this post

MaxLV: I dont know about you, but I was always taught science is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of provable, verifiable facts, something that current scientific understanding of how the planets global warming and it's causes is a long way from achieving. We just dont know with any scientific certainty what causes global warming and cooling.

Not exactly. When Einstein proposed general relativity there were many objections. Those objections gradually reduced over time. This is why you find yourself in a minority at this point.

It was not a matter of consensus as you state, but over time, and as evidence accumulated, the end result is vast majority of scientists now agree with general relativity.

Even today you can find many objectors to general relativity. They are in a small minority.



569 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127


  Reply # 1927984 2-Jan-2018 10:20
Send private message quote this post

gzt:
MaxLV: I dont know about you, but I was always taught science is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of provable, verifiable facts, something that current scientific understanding of how the planets global warming and it's causes is a long way from achieving. We just dont know with any scientific certainty what causes global warming and cooling.

 


Not exactly. When Einstein proposed general relativity there were many objections. Those objections gradually reduced over time. This is why you find yourself in a minority at this point.

It was not a matter of consensus as you state, but over time, and as evidence accumulated, the end result is vast majority of scientists now agree with general relativity.

Even today you can find many objectors to general relativity. They are in a small minority.



If I understand your reply correctly, currently there is a minority scientific opinion against the 'consensus' for the causes of global climate change, but over time that may change as the evidence accumulates, and the vast majority of scientists agree we just dont know with any scientific certainty what all the causes of global warming and cooling are, right?

As to me 'finding myself in a minority' about the consensus for the causes of climate change, I dont see anything wrong with that, and dont see that as a valid reason to stop being skeptical about the 'consensus' at this point. 




569 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127


Reply # 1927987 2-Jan-2018 10:26
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4: My brother in law is a climate scientist at NIWA. I have talk with him many times and he tells me climate change is real, it's accelerating and it scares the pants off him. He believes everyone needs to wake up and act now as time is running out fast. He says anyone that denies now in face of the avalanche of evidence is akin to a flat earther.


And I should change my mind and stop being a skeptic, right? That anyone who disbelieves your brother in law and his 'avalanche of evidence' is a 'flat earther'. Well thats a really convincing argument isn't it. Ill change my wrong thoughts, wrong doing, and stop spreading dis-information immediately, and become a true believer!

Yeah right. 

 

Mines a Tui thanks

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Less news in Facebook News Feed revamp
Posted 15-Jan-2018 13:15


Australian Government contract awarded to Datacom Connect
Posted 11-Jan-2018 08:37


Why New Zealand needs a chief technology officer
Posted 6-Jan-2018 13:59


Amazon release Silk Browser and Firefox for Fire TV
Posted 21-Dec-2017 13:42


New Chief Technology Officer role created
Posted 19-Dec-2017 22:18


All I want for Christmas is a new EV
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:54


How clever is this: AI will create 2.3 million jobs by 2020
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:52


NOW to deploy SD-WAN to regional councils
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:46


Mobile market competition issues ComCom should watch
Posted 18-Dec-2017 10:52


New Zealand government to create digital advisory group
Posted 16-Dec-2017 08:47


Australia datum changes means whole country moving 1.8 metres north-east
Posted 16-Dec-2017 08:39


UAV Traffic Management Trial launching today in New Zealand
Posted 12-Dec-2017 16:06


UFB connections pass 460,000
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:26


The Warehouse Group to adopt IBM Cloud to support digital transformation
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:22


Dimension Data peeks into digital business 2018
Posted 11-Dec-2017 10:55



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.