I have no idea. I have no actual knowledge of who believes what. I understand that many people make this claim, and I understand that it may well be an accurate claim. But, I don’t know it to be true. 
I’m not asking anyone to believe me. :no-no: I’m not making any assertation to be believed or not. I’m simply stating that I am not convinced of an assertation made by some others.
You don’t think the people pushing AGW are throwing money around? :ohreally:
I know, sorry about that. Unlike Fred I do consider you to put forward your position as you believe it. But look at the cold hard undisputed facts, when we take away the additional forcings that are under debate.
Those are both facts. The second one as was pointed out is not disputed and is easy to calculate. Either you are challenging these two well documented and established facts, or you accept that anthropogenic warming is real, since that is the logical conclusion of those two facts.
Increase levels of CO2 by about 40%, the doubling of CO2 to 1 degree rise is exponential, so without even going into the math and just using common sense this is around 0.5 a degree rise. Where’s the controversy, what is it exactly that’s so magical that brings any doubt whatsoever to this?
Yet you are not convinced. I really want to understand why. Its not that real world measurements don’t correlate, they do, temperatures have risen by 0.8 degrees. On what basis to you reject the two well established facts above?
I have no idea. I have no actual knowledge of who believes what. I understand that many people make this claim, and I understand that it may well be an accurate claim. But, I don’t know it to be true.
[/quote]
Why do you lack this knowledge? Can’t you go online or read a variety of newspapers and magazines to get this information? How do you
KNOW
that the Earth’s climate has been warmer and cooler in the past but
NOT KNOW
that most of the world’s leading climate scientists believe in AGW?
There is all sorts of stuff that one can read on the Internet or in newspapers and magazines. I’m not a scientist. Thus, I am not qualified or otherwise confident in my ability to understand and draw correct conclusions from what is written, nor am I equipped with the appropriate knowledge to discern what reports are more or less credible.
[quote=“BigJohn”]How do you
KNOW
that the Earth’s climate has been warmer and cooler in the past…[/quote]
The same way that I know that dinosaurs existed, and that it rained yesterday.
[quote=“BigJohn”]…but
NOT KNOW
that most of the world’s leading climate scientists believe in AGW?[/quote]
Has there been an actual show of hands? Or better yet, has there been a secret ballot cast? And who decides which are the world’s leading climate scientists?
There is all sorts of stuff that one can read on the Internet or in newspapers and magazines. I’m not a scientist. Thus, I am not qualified or otherwise confident in my ability to understand and draw correct conclusions from what is written, nor am I equipped with the appropriate knowledge to discern what reports are more or less credible.[/quote]
So you are unable to make a reasonable judgment based on available evidence? That would make it basically impossible for you to judge anything you did not have direct experience with. For example, how do you know that George Washington existed and supported American Independence? Do you believe that? And if so, why believe in that and not in the fact that there is a consensus of climate scientists?
[quote=“BigJohn”]How do you
KNOW
that the Earth’s climate has been warmer and cooler in the past…[/quote]
The same way that I know that dinosaurs existed, and that it rained yesterday.[/quote]
So, you ran into some dinosaurs yesterday? Or you accepted the statements of experts, as conveyed to you through textbooks and other educational media and presentations?
[quote=“Tigerman”]
[quote=“BigJohn”]…but
NOT KNOW
that most of the world’s leading climate scientists believe in AGW?[/quote]
Has there been an actual show of hands? Or better yet, has there been a secret ballot cast? And who decides which are the world’s leading climate scientists?[/quote]
Yes, of course there have been surveys. You are really unaware of this? Really? And they way they choose the world’s leading climate scientists is by their position within the scientific community. You were unaware of this also?
I’m sorry to say this, and I mean no offense, but if you don’t know those things than you are really a bit lacking in knowledge on this issue. Maybe you should read more before forming an opinion.
No. Read my comments again. Carefully.
I’ve seen dinosaur fossils. I saw it rain yesterday.
At least I know how to properly use the quote function. :snooty:
No. Read my comments again. Carefully.[/quote]
If you have a point to make,please make it. Stow the “read my comments again carefully” condescension, OK? What’s your point on this one?
[quote=“Tigerman”]
I’ve seen dinosaur fossils. I saw it rain yesterday.[/quote]
I’m not challenging your way of knowing about the rain. That’s why I didn’t mention it in my response. But about these bones that you say you saw, how do you know they weren’t dragon bones? Thousands of years ago there were myths of knights and other heroes fighting fire-breathing dragons. Maybe these were them! How do you know they were early reptiles that died out 70 million years ago? That’s what we mean when we say dinosaur, by the way. So you are accepting the experts.
If a survey is published that says most climate scientists agree with AGW, that is also something you can see. If you choose not to read it, then that is an omission on your part, and your position would be one of ignorance. If you are asserting all such studies as “Not Knowledge” then you would be challenging a basic assumption of civilization, i.e. that we have knowledge specialists who we differ to on difficult topics and produce knowledge for us, which we call experts.But that would contradict your belief in dinosaurs and evolution. If you are simply challenging the findings of one or more groups of experts, or public reporting on them, then that is another matter.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
At least I know how to properly use the quote function. :snooty:[/quote]
Well, at least you got something right. 
Sorry Tigerman you are not making sense. You say as this is not you’re area of expertise you are unable to follow what is true and who is and who isn’t telling the truth.
So you dismiss facts like CO2 increased 40% over the last century and a doubling of CO2 increases global mean temperature by 1 degree. I don’t see why you would as it clearly establishes cause and effect. But ok, lets assume its too complicated or something.
So, you look at what the professionals say right?
Hmmm, no, it seems you don’t. Is it because you listen to some skeptical scientist? We are not making much sense already as you admit no knowledge and then reject an endorsement by every national science academy in the world, but lets do that one anyway.
urrmm no. There’s the most heralded climate skeptic in the world saying AGW is real. So um, what are we left with? Seems like you want to deny it just for the sake of denying it, not actually based on facts, those it seems you wish to ignore or claim are to hard to understand.
I only respond in kind, BigJohn.
Look, I don’t know how much more clearly I can make my point. I KNOW some things in the past happened because they… happened. I don’t know what will happen tomorrow because… those things haven’t happened yet.
Doesn’t matter to me whether you call then dinosaurs or dragons. The point is, they existed and we have proof that they did indeed exist.
I often state that I do not know whether God exists or does not exist. I state so because I cannot prove existence or non-existence. I plead ignorance.
I know what I think I know and what I think I don’t know.
Mick,
Here’s all I can say, as succinctly as possible:
I don’t understand the science and thus cannot tell for myself what is credible and what is not.
Scientists are not infallible. Surely you agree on this point?
National science academies? Are these independent or are they dependent upon govenments for funding? That’s a rhetorical question, sort of.
I get that the majority of scientists agree that man is contributing to GW/CC.
I understand that even if ALL scientists agreed that man is having the suggested effect on and contribution to GW/CC, they could all be wrong.
I can’t get my head around the fact that the Earth has been colder and hotter in the past, before industrialization and before man existed, and yet, we are now sure that man is responsible for x amount of warming. I don’t see how we can be so sure about much of anything that hasn’t already happened.
I think I recently read something about Albert Einstein possibly being wrong on speed of light - relativity. 
Some of yinzer like evangelical about this. Pardon me, have you heard the good news? 
I think the point about CC is that we should avoid triggering it or making it worse. That requires taking a position and acting on it, not just saying “I don’t know”.
:eh: I admit that I don’t understand the science. How do you go from that to imagining that I have no position and / or do not act? I’ve been into conservation since well before algore made it cool.
:eh: I admit that I don’t understand the science. How do you go from that to imagining that I have no position and / or do not act? I’ve been into conservation since well before algore made it cool.[/quote]
So, you don’t believe in it but take steps to reduce GHG? That would be an interesting stance!
What happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force? Should be the name of the thread. 
Opinions are fine but, as long as you live by good actions and deeds then, you can have your opinion can’t you?
[quote=“Steviebike”]What happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force? Should be the name of the thread.
Opinions are fine but, as long as you live by good actions and deeds then, you can have your opinion can’t you? [/quote]
Absolutely! And this is the place to debate them.
Actually, I agree with a lot of what Tigerman says, most of the time. If I don’t follow his various postings around from thread to thread and chime in with, “Yes! I agree!”, it doesn’t mean that that’s not what I feel when I read them.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
Mick,
Here’s all I can say, as succinctly as possible:[/quote]
Thank you, this is really much appreciated.
I would suggest few really understand the science itself, if it makes you feel better, this is something that climate scientists have been discussing, which is to say, how to explain what is happening in a way the general public can understand. I don’t think scare tactics from the environmentists have made it easier, certainly the right wing think tanks and lobby groups with disinformation have made it worse.
Yes, but not perhaps as you see it. Science best describes the world we live, you dont deny the existence of gravity, someone might study and go deeper and eventually start to challenge our understanding, but the basics are pretty simple to prove. So it is with greenhouse gases, the points I made are not even being debated anymore, if you go deeper sure then it becomes more controversial.
[quote=“Tigerman”]3. National science academies? Are these independent or are they dependent upon govenments for funding? That’s a rhetorical question, sort of.
I get that the majority of scientists agree that man is contributing to GW/CC.
I understand that even if ALL scientists agreed that man is having the suggested effect on and contribution to GW/CC, they could all be wrong.[/quote]
I was going to say no outright, but thought I would accept the possibility in the sense Carl Sagan talks about in which no one can ever be certain of anything, perhaps this is all a dream and the moon is made of cheese. But really, no. Its possible to calculate how much warming a gas contributes or takes away from the total temperature of the earth in the same way you can calculate gravity and other physical phenomena.
We should have a series on this one “Tigermans flawed logic” we could have things like, CO2 has gone up and down before, therefore CO2 increases are purely natural, or animals have being going extinct long before man came along therefore no animals are extinct because of man or lots of people died of natural causes during the black death so world war two victims died a natural death too.
Out of interest, when do you think it was last warmer then now. (clue, its not what your right wing press tells you)
Didnt read the link , but read about something similar in the past week so assume its the same, not to go into the science which as you say you dont understand, but it seems they were way off on the calculations, from someone who observed a exploding star and then measured both light and neutrinos arrival on earth. It seems they did register the neutrinos first, but it was minutes later the light arrived which means exactly what, they are not sure. But correlated with that experiment it seems their numbers are way off and for now Einsteins equations best explain the world we live, and if there is a modification, it doesn’t mean he was “wrong” it just means there is a better way to explain out world.
I believe in leaving this world a better place than when I arrived. One day your children will ask you why we did not act when we know what we were doing to the planet, I believe that with 99% certainty, what will you say on such a day I wonder?
Boring, actually. But, not at all difficult. 
Its not my right wing press, Mick. I don’t read much of this stuff. Haven’t I been saying so?
Hadean Era - 4.5 to 3.8 billion years ago
Archaean Era - 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago
Early Paleozoic - ???
Mesozoic Era - 250 to 65 million years ago
Cenozoic Era - About 55 million years ago
Holocene Epoch - Around 12,000 years ago
From 950 to 1250 - Medieval Warm Period
[quote=“Tigerman”]
From 950 to 1250 - Medieval Warm Period[/quote]
Yup, the deniers do like to call this one. They are not skeptics as they only deny and do not weigh facts. Honestly I don’t know and nor do you, but more than enough contrary evidence supports the fact we are right now much warmer than anytime in the last 2000 years, and the steep rise in temperature is unprecedented.
Don’t you see the double standards? Fred will say, despite historical records dating back hundreds of years for sea levels in some places and thousands of measurements now being made, if a single missed entry in the middle of the pacific is made 50 years ago, it means there is uncertainty. Then, whip out a chart going back millions, or billions of years drawn in crayon and say “voila” proof. I’d laugh but its really sad really.
Sure getting a lot of rain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pakistan_floods
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2 … and_floods
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_201 … ver_Floods
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_of_2011
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Morakot
new.paho.org/disasters/index.php … Itemid=915
Then of course there is the deal happening in Thailand right now, and the the situation this year in the Philiphines, all really bad. Actually if you look at the list above almost all of it is record breaking.
And a little something from Nasa…
