Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Global Warming

bullus_hit said:
And for those who are still championing the 'climate change is crap' cause, read this article.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/not-much-climate-change-doubt-science-says-20130515-2jmup.html

just for those who dont read the article, it states over 97% of scientists worldwide believe in 'climate change'. it also refers to a study (in the USA) that said that nearly half the people questioned think that scientists are equally divided over the issue.
 
Brodders17 said:
just for those who dont read the article, it states over 97% of scientists worldwide believe in 'climate change'. it also refers to a study (in the USA) that said that nearly half the people questioned think that scientists are equally divided over the issue.

97% hey? Thats alot of scientists.

50% of people believe crap people like Livsy speak for some reason. I suspect it has something to do with an absence of neurological grunt.
 
Brodders17 said:
just for those who dont read the article, it states over 97% of scientists worldwide believe in 'climate change'. it also refers to a study (in the USA) that said that nearly half the people questioned think that scientists are equally divided over the issue.

Language is important here Brodders. Science isn't about "belief". The 97% accept that the evidence and work of their colleagues accurately describes both the warming trend and the high probability it is being forced by human industrial activity.
 
Liverpool said:
20080213DRA.png


Looking pretty sustainable at the moment.
21 years and counting.

Also, the profits (and growing profit) allows them to diversify into all sorts of other areas and markets, which allows them to keep this growing profit on an upward trend.
Nice graph (what happened to - was caused by the unsustainable shoddy practices of conservative voting free-marketeering billion dollar bonus earning suits at - banks in 2007 Livers....GFC anyone?). Why are you talking about banks? Yet another bait and switch by the master here on PRE. We were talking about industry. Banks don't move to China.
 
Scientists say united on global warming, at odds with public view

By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle
OSLO | Wed May 15, 2013 8:02pm EDT


(Reuters) - Ninety-seven percent of scientists say global warming is mainly man-made but a wide public belief that experts are divided is making it harder to gain support for policies to curb climate change, an international study showed on Thursday.

The report found an overwhelming view among scientists that human activity, led by the use of fossil fuels, was the main cause of rising temperatures in recent decades.

"There is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary," said John Cook of the University of Queensland in Australia, who led the study in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception," he said in a statement. "When people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they're more likely to support policies that take action on it."

Global average surface temperatures have risen by 0.8 degree Celsius (1.4F) since the Industrial Revolution.

Experts in Australia, the United States, Britain and Canada studied 4,000 summaries of peer-reviewed papers in journals giving a view about climate change since the early 1990s and found that 97 percent said it was mainly caused by humans.

They also asked authors for their views and found a 97 percent conviction from replies covering 2,000 papers. The data will be released at (www.skepticalscience.com).

The report said it was the biggest review so far of scientific opinion on climate change.

"If people disagree with what we've found we want to know," said Mark Richardson of the University of Reading in England, one of the authors of the study that looked at English-language studies by authors in more than 90 nations.

Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said she was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus "at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews".

Opinion polls in some countries show widespread belief that scientists disagree about whether climate change is caused by human activities or is part of natural swings such as in the sun's output.

A survey by the U.S. Pew Research Center published in October last year found 45 percent of Americans said "Yes" when asked: "Do scientists agree Earth is getting warmer because of human activity?" Forty-three percent said "No".

Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, hit 400 parts per million in the atmosphere last week, the highest in perhaps 3 million years.

Governments have agreed to work out, by the end of 2015, a deal to slow climate change that a U.N. panel of experts says will cause more floods, droughts and rising sea levels.

(Reporting By Alister Doyle; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516
 
It is also informative that climate change is not in question here ( I wonder if the champion of the downtrodden middle class white man, the. Bolt has read it?), only the skewed perception its major driver might be other than anthropogenic.
 
Liverpool said:
20080213DRA.png


Looking pretty sustainable at the moment.
21 years and counting.

Also, the profits (and growing profit) allows them to diversify into all sorts of other areas and markets, which allows them to keep this growing profit on an upward trend.
The Soviet Union went for 68 years, but you would hardly call that sustainable. Where there is no apparent volatility, there is a fair chance underlying issues lay in wait, which makes the inevitable correction massive. The current banking system is ready to explode.
 
Giardiasis said:
The Soviet Union went for 68 years, but you would hardly call that sustainable. Where there is no apparent volatility, there is a fair chance underlying issues lay in wait, which makes the inevitable correction massive. The current banking system is ready to explode.

holy *smile* gia, talking the ruskys to Livsy is pouring petrol on a burning man. Carry on.
 
Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made

Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
 
Azza said:
Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made

Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

From the same newspaper:

Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

If a paper advocating that humans cause global warming, and its checked by other scientists who also believe in this notion, is this really 'peer reviewed'?

For example, from the article:

In June, the British Journal of General Practice published a paper, "Acupuncture for 'frequent attenders' with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomised controlled trial (CACTUS study)". It has lots of numbers, but the result is very easy to see. All you have to do is look at their Figure.

(see graph illustration in the article)

How on earth did the group, led by Charlotte Paterson at the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry at Exeter University, manage to reach a conclusion like that? Well, perhaps they were people who are committed to acupuncture and it is common enough for advocates of alternative medicine to ignore evidence, even their own. But the real question is how conclusions like these came to be published in a respectable medical journal that is widely read by GPs. To make matters worse, the journal issued a press release that quotes its editor, Professor Roger Jones DM, FRCP, FRCGP, FMedSci.

The article goes on to show that other newspapers then ran with this "finding" (even though it was false but you know...it was "peer reviewed" :p )...Governments and everyday Joe Blows make decisions then based on these peer-reviewed papers...but when you have reviewers with conflicts of interest, because they are deemed 'experts in their field', then it can lead to some questionable outcomes.
 
Clutching at straws Livers, where are all these dodgy studies that have slipped through the cracks? Producing a study based on acupuncture does sweet FA to strengthen your argument. If you're genuinely interested in the science, produce some studies from reputable climatologists.
 
Liverpool said:
From the same newspaper:

Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

Did you read the paper authors responses Livers?
 
KnightersRevenge said:
Just read it myself. The response from the journal's editor is excellent. All should read it. A beautifully delivered intellectual smackdown.

Which is exactly why Livsy wouldnt go near it. Livs is like a bloke at the fish market selling smelly, cloudy eyed river mullet. Hes always going to keep his back to the shiny salmon stall and hell lie to any housewife who'll listen to flog his stock. Probably even bung on a cockney accent.

You are painting yourself into a tight corner on this one Livsy. All the scientists are incompetant or corrupt, all the journals they publish in are mangy, and now the acupuncturists guild and The Peninsula TAFE somehow supports your ostrich position?

Is there a white flag emoticon? salvage whats left of your esteem. Your done like a dinner.
 
Putting my ex-academic hat back on, in the research game one always looks at the quality of journal one is published in. There are first, second and third tier journals, but like Association Football, journals can move up and down the ranks over the years. A publication in a third or fourth tier journal, even if peer reviewed, isn't worth very much. If you want to publish in Nature or The Lancet you better make sure your methodology and analysis is water tight, but if you do get published the kudos are great.
 
antman said:
Putting my ex-academic hat back on, in the research game one always looks at the quality of journal one is published in. There are first, second and third tier journals, but like Association Football, journals can move up and down the ranks over the years. A publication in a third or fourth tier journal, even if peer reviewed, isn't worth very much. If you want to publish in Nature or The Lancet you better make sure your methodology and analysis is water tight, but if you do get published the kudos are great.

your wasting your fingertips Ant. If the NeuroSpasticity Society of Alabama's e-newsletter published 'Big googly eyes linked to integrity: a review', Livs would rate it the most outstanding, quality publication going around. That Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society rag is charlatans paying to publish their lies so they can sell solar panels.

Facts, weight of evidence, stuff like that dont really matter to Livsy.
 
tigergollywog said:
. Livs is like a bloke at the fish market selling smelly, cloudy eyed river mullet.

Dude, we all know Livers thought process can be a bit whack at times, but is it really necessary to ad-hom him page after page in every thread?

It was funny the first hundred times or so.
 
evo said:
Dude, we all know Livers thought process can be a bit whack at times, but is it really necessary to ad-hom him page after page in every thread?

It was funny the first hundred times or so.

fair enough. Ill give it a rest.