NationStates

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtBxI_ydba4 (Hopefully I've linked the correct video
As promised, here's the scientific and political thread for AGW

"But climate change is not a political issue"- bullocks. Absolute bullocks. Some people are vehemently in support of politicians pushing extreme policies to save the world from climate change, and some people are absolutely vehemently opposed to politicians pushing such policies. Politicians, as a significant part of their election campaigns either act or fail to act on climate change depending on who their voters are and/or their personal beliefs on the matter. That absolutely makes it a political issue. If that's not a political issue, then nothing is. Now whether or not it should be a political issue is a different matter which could be discussed in this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that is.

Let's begin with a heavily quoted statistic
97% of climate scientists agree that humans are a significant contributing factor
That was posted in 2013 by John Cook et al. This is the paper which is usually the one that's quoted when people quote the 97% statistic. So let's delve into it, shall we. That paper specially says that the authors studied the abstracts of 1,200 papers on anthropogenic climate change. They did no science and only ready the abstracts. So take that as you will. Approx. 2/3 of the 1200 papers expressed no position either way, and these were not included in the study. This narrows it down to 400 papers which were actively used. 97% of those papers agreed that humans were responsible. The remaining 800 had no position. So that 97% is kind of misleading
Here's the paper itself.
https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en ... ts&f=false
Suplimentry texts:
https://theconversation.com/its-true-97 ... ning-14051
And Cook himself said that the motivation of the paper was to sway public policy
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/stu ... ming-15998

What is your current educational background?

NERVUN wrote:What is your current educational background?

I ask the same as some due to the “interpretations”

Oh crap, did I publish this without finishing it?

NERVUN wrote:What is your current educational background?

I have a bachelor of business in tourism/hospitality whereby I achieved almost exclusively credits, high distinctions and distinctions, and, at graduation, I ended in the top 5 of the highest ranked students in the class. This was in in one of Australia's highest ranked universities. But I have no scientific background. This thread is not finished.

Australian rePublic wrote:

NERVUN wrote:What is your current educational background?

I have a bachelor of business in tourism/hospitality whereby I achieved almost exclusively credits, high distinctions and distinctions, and, at graduation, I ended in the top 5 of the highest ranked students in the class. This was in in one of Australia's highest ranked universities. But I have no scientific background. This thread is not finished.

Ah, I see.

I wouldn't bother with finishing the thread then.

You lack the credentials to actually evaluate what you're supposedly evaluating.

Australian rePublic wrote:

NERVUN wrote:What is your current educational background?

I have a bachelor of business in tourism/hospitality whereby I achieved almost exclusively credits, high distinctions and distinctions, and, at graduation, I ended in the top 5 of the highest ranked students in the class. This was in in one of Australia's highest ranked universities. But I have no scientific background. This thread is not finished.

So you have nothing. The thread is finished.

NERVUN wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:I have a bachelor of business in tourism/hospitality whereby I achieved almost exclusively credits, high distinctions and distinctions, and, at graduation, I ended in the top 5 of the highest ranked students in the class. This was in in one of Australia's highest ranked universities. But I have no scientific background. This thread is not finished.

Ah, I see.

I wouldn't bother with finishing the thread then.

You lack the credentials to actually evaluate what you're supposedly evaluating.

So what's your background, then? Are you more qualified than I?quote="Giovenith";p="36355369"]

Australian rePublic wrote:

NERVUN wrote:What is your current educational background?

I have a bachelor of business in tourism/hospitality whereby I achieved almost exclusively credits, high distinctions and distinctions, and, at graduation, I ended in the top 5 of the highest ranked students in the class. This was in in one of Australia's highest ranked universities. But I have no scientific background. This thread is not finished.

So you have nothing. The thread is finished.[/quote]
So what's your background then, are you more qualified than I?

Australian rePublic wrote:Oh crap, did I publish this without finishing it?

Then edit the OP when you're ready.

Australian rePublic wrote:

NERVUN wrote:What is your current educational background?

I have a bachelor of business in tourism/hospitality whereby I achieved almost exclusively credits, high distinctions and distinctions, and, at graduation, I ended in the top 5 of the highest ranked students in the class. This was in in one of Australia's highest ranked universities. But I have no scientific background. This thread is not finished.

So you don't have an environmental science, geology, biology, or physics degree?

petition to change thread's title to "ThisIsFine.jpeg"

let me know when it gets toasty enough for you

Dumb Ideologies wrote:petition to change thread's title to "ThisIsFine.jpeg"

let me know when it gets toasty enough for you

This picture belongs in the OP's text body.

If your argument is that the majority of climate scientists have been misrepresented, then it's astonishing they haven't spoken up about it.

Their silence to the alleged misuse of their work is damning.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:petition to change thread's title to "ThisIsFine.jpeg"

let me know when it gets toasty enough for you

I don't deny that humans are causing climate change. It mught be over-hyped, but we're still causing climate change. My question is whether or not our impact is measurable or significant. And even if we're not causing climate change, helping the earth is a bloody good idea. Smog is still toxic, irrespective of whether or not it causes the climate to change. However, I, believe that we're going about saving the earth in the wrong way. There are things that we could do better

Australian rePublic wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:petition to change thread's title to "ThisIsFine.jpeg"

let me know when it gets toasty enough for you

I don't deny that humans are causing climate change. It mught be over-hyped, but we're still causing climate change. My question is whether or not our impact is measurable or significant. And even if we're not causing climate change, helping the earth is a bloody good idea. Smog is still toxic, irrespective of whether or not it causes the climate to change. However, I, believe that we're going about saving the earth in the wrong way. There are things that we could do better

Yes.

/endofdiscussion

Australian rePublic wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:petition to change thread's title to "ThisIsFine.jpeg"

let me know when it gets toasty enough for you

I don't deny that humans are causing climate change. It mught be over-hyped, but we're still causing climate change. My question is whether or not our impact is measurable or significant. And even if we're not causing climate change, helping the earth is a bloody good idea. Smog is still toxic, irrespective of whether or not it causes the climate to change. However, I, believe that we're going about saving the earth in the wrong way. There are things that we could do better

Oh, we could certainly be doing better. We could be actually following the advise of climate scientists who study this for a living.

And I'm curious to know why you think you know better than them? Is it because you're listening to random low-production-value propaganda shorts on YouTube?

Australian rePublic wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:petition to change thread's title to "ThisIsFine.jpeg"

let me know when it gets toasty enough for you

I don't deny that humans are causing climate change. It mught be over-hyped, but we're still causing climate change. My question is whether or not our impact is measurable or significant. And even if we're not causing climate change, helping the earth is a bloody good idea. Smog is still toxic, irrespective of whether or not it causes the climate to change. However, I, believe that we're going about saving the earth in the wrong way. There are things that we could do better

well if you're looking at temperature and nothing else the ideal solution is global thermonuclear winter, but some of the other effects are maybe undesirable even more than a managed retreat from global to regional economies.

Australian rePublic wrote:

NERVUN wrote:What is your current educational background?

I have a bachelor of business in tourism/hospitality whereby I achieved almost exclusively credits, high distinctions and distinctions, and, at graduation, I ended in the top 5 of the highest ranked students in the class. This was in in one of Australia's highest ranked universities. But I have no scientific background. This thread is not finished.

I say Australia needs to deal away with beaches and replace beaches with pizzeria hotels.

My educational background is a degree in Physics.

I have no background about restaurants, hotels, or tourism.

...

Uhm.

Risottia wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:I have a bachelor of business in tourism/hospitality whereby I achieved almost exclusively credits, high distinctions and distinctions, and, at graduation, I ended in the top 5 of the highest ranked students in the class. This was in in one of Australia's highest ranked universities. But I have no scientific background. This thread is not finished.

I say Australia needs to deal away with beaches and replace beaches with pizzeria hotels.

My educational background is a degree in Physics.

I have no background about restaurants, hotels, or tourism.

...

Uhm.

Use the excess pizza crust as sandbags.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:well if you're looking at temperature and nothing else the ideal solution is global thermonuclear winter, but some of the other effects are maybe undesirable even more than a managed retreat from global to regional economies.

Well, the Tsar Bomba caused very little radioactive fallout compared to the yield. All hail Soviet Superscience!

Risottia wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:well if you're looking at temperature and nothing else the ideal solution is global thermonuclear winter, but some of the other effects are maybe undesirable even more than a managed retreat from global to regional economies.

Well, the Tsar Bomba caused very little radioactive fallout compared to the yield. All hail Soviet Superscience!

Unfortunately in order to produce nuclear winter, you have to groundburst the weapons as much as possible. And that will produce radioactive fallout regardless of bomb type.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:I don't deny that humans are causing climate change. It mught be over-hyped, but we're still causing climate change. My question is whether or not our impact is measurable or significant. And even if we're not causing climate change, helping the earth is a bloody good idea. Smog is still toxic, irrespective of whether or not it causes the climate to change. However, I, believe that we're going about saving the earth in the wrong way. There are things that we could do better

Oh, we could certainly be doing better. We could be actually following the advise of climate scientists who study this for a living.

And I'm curious to know why you think you know better than them? Is it because you're listening to random low-production-value propaganda shorts on YouTube?

I don't think that I know better than climate scientists. That doesn't change the fact that the 97% statistic isn't misleading. I would have posted scientific papers which support the idea that humans are contributing to climate change if I was given the oppertunity, but since everyone here is more concerned about ridiculing me for daring to suggest that their world view isn't 100% air-tight, and that I might with them after all at least to some extent. (I mean, did you even bother to ask me what my opinion was and confirm what my opinion was before you went on your crusaide about how wrong I am. Where did I say that humans aren't causing climate change? Tell me where? And don't forget that if I did, I would be extremely outnumbered. I consider myself a centrist. Accoriding to NS, I am a radical right-winger, whilst accoridng to right-winged people that I a debate against, I am considered somewhat of a radical leftist. At least the right-wingers give the oppertunity to speak my mind and don't start insulting my intelligence for opinions that I don't hold. I was going to talk post scientific articles which prove climate change, but I'm not going to bother, but if you're going to insult me for not doing so, despite the fact that I clearly said that this thread ain't finished, then I'm not going to bother. If you're just going to assume what my position is without giving me the oppertunity to actually expliciately state what is, so that you can have the oppertunity to insult me, then there's really no point in me debating any further. Have fun living in your closed-minded bubble where you and your lefty friends are 100% right about everything and anyone who disagrees with you is 100% wrong by default

Australian rePublic wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:Oh, we could certainly be doing better. We could be actually following the advise of climate scientists who study this for a living.

And I'm curious to know why you think you know better than them? Is it because you're listening to random low-production-value propaganda shorts on YouTube?

I don't think that I know better than climate scientists. That doesn't change the fact that the 97% statistic isn't misleading.

I agree, it isn't. But in case you meant "is" I'll refer you to my earlier post on exactly this:

Neanderthaland wrote:If your argument is that the majority of climate scientists have been misrepresented, then it's astonishing they haven't spoken up about it.

Their silence to the alleged misuse of their work is damning.

Hi there. Degree in Geology here. There is no serious debate in academic circles about climate change. Virtually all professionals agree that it's anthropogenic. Your stupid YouTube video isn't even remotely credible.

I would have posted scientific papers which support the idea that humans are contributing to climate change if I was given the oppertunity, but since everyone here is more concerned about ridiculing me for daring to suggest that their world view isn't 100% air-tight, and that I might with them after all at least to some extent. (I mean, did you even bother to ask me what my opinion was and confirm what my opinion was before you went on your crusaide about how wrong I am. Where did I say that humans aren't causing climate change? Tell me where? And don't forget that if I did, I would be extremely outnumbered. I consider myself a centrist. Accoriding to NS, I am a radical right-winger, whilst accoridng to right-winged people that I a debate against, I am considered somewhat of a radical leftist. At least the right-wingers give the oppertunity to speak my mind and don't start insulting my intelligence for opinions that I don't hold. I was going to talk post scientific articles which prove climate change, but I'm not going to bother, but if you're going to insult me for not doing so, despite the fact that I clearly said that this thread ain't finished, then I'm not going to bother. If you're just going to assume what my position is without giving me the oppertunity to actually expliciately state what is, so that you can have the oppertunity to insult me, then there's really no point in me debating any further. Have fun living in your closed-minded bubble where you and your lefty friends are 100% right about everything and anyone who disagrees with you is 100% wrong by default

I consider you the guy who shows up with embarrassingly bad "gotcha" arguments that are easily refuted. It was more-or-less the same back on the religious threads where your arguments were so embarrassingly bad, and ill-informed, that other Christians eventually asked you to stop.

I don't know where you get your information from, but it's obvious that:
A) You never consider it critically, and
B) You should really start getting your information somewhere else.

Look at that! Not even done with the first page and it’s already a clusterfuck!