Here's why climate change is a growing problem still.

[kenneal - lagger]

Woodburner, this is the second time that you've mentioned this petition and I dealt with it last time. Please go back through what I wrote probably a month ago now.

[woodburner]

I suspect the signatories to the petition can not be part of the 97%, as they don’t agree with AGW. That means there are just over a million “climate scientists� who make up the 97%. Or maybe the 31,000 are not “climate scientists�, but then neither is Al Gore, but it doesn’t stop the AGW group claiming he is right.

I wonder where the 97% came from, perhaps this could provide some insight.

[kenneal - lagger]

You really are losing your way, Woodburner. The 97% refers to climate scientists not the motley collection people from across the scientific and long retired scientific world that are represented in this petition. The 97% refers to scientists who work in the field of climate change, who are up to date with the research on climate change and who thus really know what they are talking about.

If you had a problem with your car would you call in a carpenter to give you advice? Probably not. You would take it to someone who really knows what they are talking about like a car mechanic perhaps! That's why I go to www.skepticalscience.com for my advice. It's like taking a car to a garage to get it fixed rather than the local builders merchant. You might find a Youtube video on how to fix your car but you don't really know whether what they are talking about is what is wrong with the car.

Perhaps you would like to pick through the list and see if you can find anyone who works in Climate Science and contributes to the "supposed" 3% of contrarians.

[Lord Beria3]

https://www.ianwelsh.net/say-goodbye-to ... ilization/

Since we continue to pump green house gasses out, since every scenario includes more significant warning, I will state again: we are not going to avoid permafrost melting.

Permafrost holds vast amounts of methane. Methane is, short term, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

This will likely then lead to methane releases from arctic seas. It will lead to faster melting of glaciers and polar and antarctic ice. As oceans warm, they will expand further, leading to sea level rises.

Increased temperatures will lead to even more extreme weather events such as category 6 hurricanes.

We will see changes in weather patterns and so on.

But the key point is that we are about to hit, and there is no actual possibility of avoiding, the accelerator, almost certainly leading to exponential uncontrolled increases in climate change.

We are, for all practical purposes, past the point of no return. We will lose our coastal cities, for example, the only question is when. The glaciers and snowcap in most of the world will go away, leading to many rivers drying up.

Etc, etc…

Climate change is not a question, it is a certainty, and the question is not will it be bad, but “how bad?�

The answer is almost certainly, “very, very bad.�

It's all looking rather grim.

[BritDownUnder]

A good DWTV (Deutsche Welle) program on YouTube about people fleeing climate change and the middle section is about permafrost in Russia. The scientist being interviewed said that there is more organic matter locked up in the permafrost than there is living organic matter in the whole world. When it melts it can all theoretically be added to global warming gases already present in the atmosphere.

Not the kind of documentary that cheers you up.

[kenneal - lagger]

Got a URL for that BDU?

[woodburner]

You really are losing your way, Woodburner. The 97% refers to climate scientists....................

Really? Despite the continuing insults (motley collection) I could argue that I am not prepared to be led up the garden path by attemps to appeal-to-authority (97%) to avoid having to admit that “consensus� is not a scientific justification.

As Benny Peiser pointed out in a letter to Science (Submission ID: 56001) that Science declined to publish but that the Cornwall Alliance summarized in 2006:

“Oreskes claimed that an analysis of 928 abstracts in the ISI database containing the phrase “climate change� proved the alleged consensus. It turned out that she had searched the database using three keywords (“global climate change�) instead of the two (“climate change�) she reported—reducing the search results by an order of magnitude. Searching just on “climate change� instead found almost 12,000 articles in the same database in the relevant decade. Excluded from Oreskes’s list were “countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change; and that climate modeling is highly uncertain.� Further, even using the three key words she actually used, “global climate change,� brought up [not 928 but] 1,247 documents, of which 1,117 included abstracts. An analysis of those abstracts showed that

only 1 percent explicitly endorsed what Oreskes called the “consensus view�;
29 percent implicitly accepted it “but mainly focus[ed] on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change�;
8 percent focused on “mitigation�;
6 percent focused on methodological questions;
8 percent dealt “exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change�;
3 percent “reject[ed] or doubt[ed] the view that human activities are the main drivers of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’�;
4 percent focused “on natural factors of global climate change�; and
42 percent did “not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.�

You will need to look here to access the links

[BritDownUnder]

Got a URL for that BDU?

Here you go.

The permafrost bit is in the middle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4Uv9_7KJE

[kenneal - lagger]

Thanks BDU. I look at that over lunch.

[emordnilap]

Got a URL for that BDU?

Here you go.

The permafrost bit is in the middle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4Uv9_7KJE

Harrowing. Homo non-sapiens is fecked.

[woodburner]

As with all sources of information, this video needs to be scrutinised. “Climate change� is cited frequently, but the major causes of the flooding in Jakarta are water abstraction in Jakarta, causing it to sink, deforesting in the hill forests, preventing moderation of water flow, and tectonic plate movement.

[BritDownUnder]

As with all sources of information, this video needs to be scrutinised. “Climate change� is cited frequently, but the major causes of the flooding in Jakarta are water abstraction in Jakarta, causing it to sink, deforesting in the hill forests, preventing moderation of water flow, and tectonic plate movement.

Actually I agree with you on the Indonesia segment. Firstly a sinking village 'on the Indian Ocean' Sumatra maybe, then switched to Jakarta on the island of Java - a long way from the Indian Ocean was cited. It was irrelevant and a waste of time. I think South East Britain is also sinking due to glacial rebound (of North West Britain i.e. Scotland) as well as sea level rise - apparently Finland is actually growing in area for the same reason. Nonetheless there is a problem and it needs solving by barrages or coastal defences or 'retreat'. The real loaded gun pointing at humanity is the permafrost and glacial melting and desert expansion. The Russian scientist interviewed in the segment that I originally referred to is very blunt like Russians can be and is right on the money. Also CO2 levels in the atmosphere higher than anytime in the last 3 million years is a bit worrying too.

Whether black or Arab Africans fleeing to Europe is due to climate change or the 'free' stuff from the welfare state they get when they move there could be a subject for discussion in another thread.

[kenneal - lagger]

You really are losing your way, Woodburner. The 97% refers to climate scientists....................

Really? Despite the continuing insults (motley collection) I could argue that I am not prepared to be led up the garden path by attemps to appeal-to-authority (97%) to avoid having to admit that “consensus� is not a scientific justification.

As ................ors of global climate change�; and
42 percent did “not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.[/i]�

If you look at this page, Woodburner, you will find that Peiser has, in fact, retracted this criticism of Oreskes paper and also the full rebuttal. Apparently Daft Monckton repeated Peiser's claim after he had retracted it.

So, once again your badly researched point turns out to be no point at all.

[kenneal - lagger]

As with all sources of information, this video needs to be scrutinised.

Ah! the irony!! I wish you would take your own advice, woodburner, so that I don't have to post corrections to what you post. A simple check of all your sources on www.skepticalscience.com would reveal the truth to you. The Skeptical Science website is written by people who do the most up to the minute research.

“Climate change� is cited frequently, but the major causes of the flooding in Jakarta are water abstraction in Jakarta, causing it to sink, deforesting in the hill forests, preventing moderation of water flow, and tectonic plate movement.

The authors of that film made a grave mistake by including Jakarta as I think it is well know than that city is sinking due to water abstraction causing the soil to compress. They had plenty of evidence of climate change and its effects from other sources. Adding Jakarta makes it possible for people like woodburner to rubbish the whole film by inferring that because the Jakarta bit is wrong the whole film is wrong about climate change.

Yes, sea level rise caused by climate change will make matters worse in the future but the primary problem at the moment is the sinking caused by water abstraction.

[kenneal - lagger]

.................... Whether black or Arab Africans fleeing to Europe is due to climate change or the 'free' stuff from the welfare state they get when they move there could be a subject for discussion in another thread.

I don't think people flee to Europe for the free stuff alone. That might be part of the "Streets Paved With Gold" idea that is sold by the people traffickers seeking to make a fast buck from potential migrants but the major part is the perceived general affluence of the west. Even the poor seem better off which is influenced by the welfare state but that cannot continue as we have to reduce our three planet lifestyles to a one planet lifestyle in order to give others in the world a fair share.