The Earth is about to become Venus 2.0

[Vash The Stampede]

I hate both, but understand global warming. I don't like the word believe cause you make it seem like a religion.

[Endus]

That's why I added the last part. Preconceptions can be based on the overwhelming amount of evidence - however, scientific method requires that you consider only the argument/evidence currently presented on its own merit and do not dismiss it just based on it not matching the expected result.

Which is a straw man, because that doesn't happen.

And that's exactly what takes place on IPCC and the like: they dismiss the researches that do not match their expectations, without even seriously considering it. At least, as far as I know, that's what happens.

Then you know wrong. Because it doesn't.

Any argument that doesn't match up with all the other data will face serious scrutiny, meaning that methodological or measurement flaws will get identified, but that's true of any scientific field; if you claim that you've discovered a cheap way to make antimatter, scientists are going to test that theory, and see if they can replicate the data and results. Or that what you created is antimatter, rather than, say, lead. Or whatever. This is how the scientific process works. What you're complaining about is literally the scientific method.

Imagine if we found some principally new object in the Universe tomorrow, that seemingly broke known laws of physics - and, instead of considering it, everyone would just say, "Well, we know the Universe quite well, and such objects don't exist. Neeeext?" Wouldn't be much of a science now, would it?

No.

But that's not what happens in climate science. What happens is, if I stick with your astronomy example, someone claims that the greater universe is just the light of God shining in from the dark sphere the solar system is contained within. And the rest of the scientists go "that doesn't match any of the data we have, and doesn't even make internal sense, scientifically". That's not discarding it because of preconceptions, that's discarding it because it's nonsense that cannot be substantiated in any way.

The IPCC models have been refined and improved constantly. Why? Because someone says "hey, what about X?" And they find out that X does have a small effect, and they quantify it, and now the model is more certain, and more reliable. Because on consideration, that argument did have merit, but it did not contradict the other data, it supplemented.

What we know is that the warming trend we're seeing is not due to any currently-known natural factor. Every factor we've been able to think of has been considered and quantified, to consider whether it's a causal force. For the most part, they haven't been. The only factor that's an outlier, where its increase is matched by the changes in the climate, is human activity. Even finding another natural factor wouldn't contradict that, just demonstrate that maybe human influence is less than our current models show, but that's highly unlikely, because we know how human emissions such as CO2 should affect climate, and lo and behold, our projections match the real-world experience. And that applies going back and starting at earlier periods, too, to show that it predicts the current climate thread.

Any actual new evidence is given consideration; this is why the IPCC keeps putting out new reports, because the status of the physical science basis is always improving. Through exactly the process you're claiming can't happen.

Here's a short-form interactive graphic by Bloomberg that I quite like for demonstrating the above; it shows the main natural factors, and how their effect is minimal at best, and thus not contributing to the warming trend, before adding in human factors. And showing how close the combination of those factors ends up being to observed warming. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...ing-the-world/

[Orlong]

The problem with events/organizations like IPCC is that they have a predefined agenda which you have to agree with in order for your work to be considered. As such, they have a bias against the results that contradict that agenda.

In comparison, in astrophysics, for example, it is not so: you suggest presenting a new result on a conference, the commission looks at your abstract and decides whether this result is worth discussing - but they never make the judgment on whether the result is right or not. For example, if I write an abstract in which I explain that I've gone through the SDSS data and came to the conclusion that neutron stars might actually be something else, say, I don't know, fast-rotating black holes - then, even though this claim contradicts everything we know so far, likely people will be interested to listening to my theory.

Now, try presenting a result on IPCC which will say, "Okay, I've gone through some lake temperature data and realized that the average temperature increase isn't even close to your predictions, guys". What response will they get? "Nope, we aren't interested in listening to deniers."

Climatology is science. IPCC and the like, however, aren't science.

Thats what I was trying to say, you just said it a lot better.

[Garnier Fructis]

And that's exactly what takes place on IPCC and the like: they dismiss the researches that do not match their expectations, without even seriously considering it. At least, as far as I know, that's what happens.

They are seriously considered. But they're almost always wrong, which we discover because of the attention they get. It's really no different than crank physics papers and how the physics community deals with it.

[Thessik-Irontail]

There are a lot of scientists that claim the alarmist crowd are full of crap, and they, like conservatives on many social media platforms are being silenced or ignored by mainstream media.

I am currently learning the arguments on both sides to determin whether global warming is a real danger or if it is simply another leftist nutbag theory like patriarcy, rape culture, wage gap, etc..

I thought this presentation was entertaining and tells the side we never hear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owm25OHGglk

I will need to find pro-global warming answers to the medieval and roman warming periods, an explanation for why "the pause" exists while cO2 sky rockets, why all the climate models are so far off base, etc..

I have learned is that you NEVER trust anything the media is behind, and you fact check any movement leftists push, and you never just look at one sides arguments.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

I never really understood what your political stance had to do with climate change.

Is it because of Al Gore?

[purebalance]

>Ignores the fact that these changes caused mass extinctions

Ignores the fact that mass extinctions have been a necessary part of life on this planet. More than likely if it weren't for mass extinctions we wouldn't be here today.

[Garnier Fructis]

I will need to find pro-global warming answers to the medieval and roman warming periods, an explanation for why "the pause" exists while cO2 sky rockets, why all the climate models are so far off base, etc..

I have learned is that you NEVER trust anything the media is behind, and you fact check any movement leftists push, and you never just look at one sides arguments.

I know this may not be a very popular answer, but all of these are addressed and answered in the current IPCC report. It's essentially just a giant synthesis of a vast body of research, and the sources are there if you want to go there directly.

The medieval warm period is actually a red herring, because that was a local thing. The global temperature was much lower than it is today.

[PhilUK]

Must be hell to pay taxes in every nation in the world along with that world tax to the UN.............See how stupid that sounds.

Not sure what you're getting at but Global Warming is a "GLOBAL" issue, it affects everyone and in my opinion has nothing to do with political parties loyalties. Plus I'm from Europe and try to think beyond my own borders.

[Garnier Fructis]

I never really understood what your political stance had to do with climate change.

Is it because of Al Gore?

A good rule of thumb is that any scientific issue with any potential to affect someone's wallet will cause it to become politicized. Because we tend to like money more than we like hard truths.

[lockedout]

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...co2-threshold/

Global Warming and its similar effects are a threat people and yet you continue to ignore it.

According to scientists there is nothing you can do to stop it only barely slow down it's effects. So whatever is going to happen is inevitable. Enjoy life, care about yourself.

[TheFirstOnes]

1. I take neither side.

2. Yes, global worming is real.

3. HOWEVER, we humans are making it 1000000000000000Xs worse, we're just too dumb not to see it. Global warming should take around millions of years to really take action. However, we humans are using power-plants, factories, drillings, pollution, and so much more to destroy our own world even faster. Hell, by the time aliens arrive, we'd be extinct. That's how fucked we are, in my opinion. That is, if it's not stopped soon.

[Garnier Fructis]

According to scientists there is nothing you can do to stop it only barely slow down it's effects. So whatever is going to happen is inevitable. Enjoy life, care about yourself.

Global Warming is not a binary scenario. The speed at which it happens matters. A lot.

[Endus]

There are a lot of scientists that claim the alarmist crowd are full of crap, and they, like conservatives on many social media platforms are being silenced or ignored by mainstream media.

I am currently learning the arguments on both sides to determin whether global warming is a real danger or if it is simply another leftist nutbag theory like patriarcy, rape culture, wage gap, etc..

I thought this presentation was entertaining and tells the side we never hear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owm25OHGglk

I will need to find pro-global warming answers to the medieval and roman warming periods, an explanation for why "the pause" exists while cO2 sky rockets, why all the climate models are so far off base, etc..

I have learned is that you NEVER trust anything the media is behind, and you fact check any movement leftists push, and you never just look at one sides arguments.

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

The guy's a conspiracy nutter who denies well-understood physical phenomena based on literally no credible evidence, is funded primarily by the fossil fuel industry, and so forth. You couldn't have picked a more wildly biased source.

It's like picking that Ancient Aliens guy as the balanced science opinion on extraterrestrial visitors.

[Forogil]

Earth is going to become Venus 2? So the Earth surface temp is going to rise about 700 degrees give or take?

No, that is just someone crying wolf. Similarly as the IPCC claims (later retracted) about rapidly shrinking glaciers in the Himalayans.

The problem with such statements is that (after being easily refuted) they taint all the other arguments with their inaccuracy.

- - - Updated - - -

Earth will survive. Humans and most other animals will not.

Humans are very adaptable and will as a species survive even if earth gets 10 or 50 degrees hotter or colder (unless some other catastrophe happens). Doesn't make it a desirable scenario, though.

Many other large animals will not survive.

[caervek]

The poll is a bit ambiguous as it makes no distinction between people who don't believe in global warming and people who don't believe in man made global warming. As a result the poll will be collecting a lot of false data.

[Thessik-Irontail]

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

The guy's a conspiracy nutter who denies well-understood physical phenomena based on literally no credible evidence, is funded primarily by the fossil fuel industry, and so forth. You couldn't have picked a more wildly biased source.

It's like picking that Ancient Aliens guy as the balanced science opinion on extraterrestrial visitors.

Thanks for the heads up, however it is the argument a person makes and not the person themselves that matters, all else is distraction.

If his ideas on global warming are nutbar, I am sure it will come up during my balanced research.

[Endus]

Thanks for the heads up, however it is the argument a person makes and not the person themselves that matters, all else is distraction.

If his ideas on global warming are nutbar, I am sure it will come up during my balanced research.

He claims that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. That's been conclusively proven to be true by thousands of experimental applications over more than a century. It's a ridiculous thing to contest. It's like claiming that people don't need oxygen to live.

Some links with explanations and further links to evidence and so forth;
https://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...use-effect.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rian-nonsense/
http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/co2_greenhouse_gas
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...reenhouse-gas/
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

[Thessik-Irontail]

Thanks I will take a look.

[Naxere]

Real or not, we'll all be dead before it matters.