Firstly, if you're going to cut and paste a long article without comment, just provide a link, and/or make it clear it's not actually your perspective.
I'm guessing this tosh was posted as some sort of a response to the 'cats out of the bag' thread. For stuff on whether climate change is anthropogenic, please refer to my post of 36 hours ago.
This stuff you've pasted is staggeringly ill-informed. It suggests - and I take it by inference that you agree, Mole - that climate change is not really exacerbated by humans, but that all meteorologists and climatologists are either in a conspiracy with governments or have been hoodwinked by them as part of a grand tax-raising exercise.
So go o0n, tell us straight, these tens of thousands of scientists, are they corrupt or merely gullible?
Against my better judgement, I feel baited into knocking over some of this tired nonsense.
mole wrote: Before the dawn of man, there was an indisputable history of climate change.
Yes. But the rate of change today is nothing like it was at most times in the past.
mole wrote: By the 1970s much of the western world became increasingly urban, with concrete jungles and proliferation of manmade gadgets. Climate wise some scientists were predicting an imminent ‘Ice Age’, this was taken up by much of the media, and popular opinion was that the Earth was cooling.
And they were, in part, right. They were considering the cooling effect of industrial emission of sulphates into the atmosphere. what they didn't factor in was the warming effect of the carbon emissions.
This is why when there was a surge in industrialisation post WW2 we don't get a spike in global temperatures until there's global legislation to curb sulphates. Then temperatures go way up all of a sudden.
mole wrote: such protesting individuals are more likely to come from a social science, arts, or unemployed background rather than followers of pure science in the traditional sense.
Mmm-hmm. The Royal Society and its equivalent bodies in countries all around the globe. Soap dodging scum.
mole wrote: many prominent scientists dispute this. A quick Google search of ‘List Scientists Opposing Global Warming’ will verify this.
Check what kind of scientists they are. As I said the other day, deniers sound so grand when their names have 'professor' in front, until you find out that they're economists, geologists or astrophysicists. Show me a single peer-reviewed paper that disputes anthropogenic climate change. Just one will do.
mole wrote: The trouble is on closer examination, the charts show CO2 lagging behind the rising temperature; this tends to support rising heat being the cause of increased CO2 levels not the other way around.
What actually happens is CO2 rises, the temperature goes up, causing more CO2 to be released. For example, Siberian permafrost is melting, releasing methane (a potent greenhouse gas). Polar ice caps melt, meaning there's less white to reflect the sun, leading to more warming. forests dry out then burn, releasing their carbon.
This is why there's such an urgency. It is widely held that the tipping point is an increase of around 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. After that, the feedback mechanisms kick in and we won't be able to stop it.
A tip for you Mole, and Jshell too - when you hear something that claims to debunk an entire field of science, check your facts before believing it.
|
