Bill Gates Recruiting Heads of States to Stir Action Against Climate Change

[corysold 0]

The knowledge that the Earth is a sphere predates the invention of paper, so it is very unlikely that "the Earth is flat" was in any peer-reviewed paper of note.

 

I didn't say that was peer reviewed. But it was science fact at the time.

 

Again, I'm not saying Global warming doesn't exist, I don't know, the evidence seems to be it is without definitive proof of why. But I also know that scientists aren't dumb and they know how to follow the money. The US government spent 32 BILLION dollars on global warming research between 1989 and 2009. If the first few results were, "Nope, not happening", that is a lot of money that wouldn't have gone into the pockets of the scientists.

[Franco 0]

And things are sensationalized for ratings. I can't say for certain whats true or not but I have recently seen the cable media hype 2 hurricanes (faking strong winds and all) but seem as though they couldn't care less about the people devastated in the aftermath. They know what gets the ratings

 

Source is I saw an old politically incorrect show on youtube where some weather expert claimed disaster by 2010. It's easy to project into the distant future.

 

You're absolutely right...things are sensationalized for ratings...but I noticed your sources aren't actually scientific papers...I'm agree with you that we should take what the media says with a grain of salt. But I'm not talking about the media. I'm talking about the actual scientists doing the research and publishing the papers

 

I used to work outdoors as a youngster and would rely on the weather man to let me know if I needed an umbrella. I got wet many a days. Now I know weather and climate are 2 different things but if you can't tell if it's gonna rain in 2 days, don't tell me you can predict climate 30 years down the line.

 

You're absolutely right. We can't predict what the weather will be like in two days (super annoying), but it's actually easier to predict with longer timeframes. I like to use this analogy. We're unable to predict next week's weather right? But we are able to know for certain that it will get colder in two-three months...and then get warmer again 3 months after that

 

I have a really old set of encyclopedias and it's fascinating to read what "expert" knew in those days compared to today. Like Gorillas cannot live in captivity for example.

 

I remember watching the OJ trial and they presented a "glove expert". Really? He just happen to work in sales.

 

As a kid I grew up being taught in school that boys and girls act differently because boys are taught to play sports and be tough while girls are given dolls. Today we know that you can raise a boy as a girl or vice versa but they still may identify with the gender they are born into.

 

is Pluto a planet or not? My old encyclopedias says "what is a Pluto?"

 

Like I said, it may all be true but I'm not jumping in with both feet just yet.

 

I assume these anecdotes are meant to argue that we shouldn't believe everything scientists say. On some level, that is true, but when it's the scientific method that proves things wrong that were once thought of as fact, that argument really goes out the window.

 

Scientists can change their mind based on new evidence. However, when it comes to climate change, it first started with the link between CO2 and temperature back in the 1800s. Then in the 1920s-30s, Scientists then say that the CO2 that man is dumping into the atmosphere may cause the earth to warm. And since then, there have been thousands of papers that confirm that premise

[Franco 0]

Just because it is peer reviewed, doesn't mean it is right.

 

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

 

 

When reviewing goes wrong: the ugly side of peer review

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/editors-update/when-reviewing-goes-wrong-the-ugly-side-of-peer-review

 

 

The peer-review system for academic papers is badly in need of repair

http://theconversation.com/the-peer-review-system-for-academic-papers-is-badly-in-need-of-repair-72669

 

Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems

https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

 

Sure, peer-review isn't perfect, but again, when thousands of papers support the premise of man-made climate change and its dangers, this argument is invalid in this instance

 

And just because something isn't perfect, doesn't mean we shouldn't use and trust it. All of those examples that these articles point out were exposed by other scientists; so that's the peer-review process actually working

 

Modern Scientists Are Wrong Far More Than You Think

https://psmag.com/education/scientists-are-wrong-a-lot

Ok...Every scientist says this. It's not a secret lol. In the very same article, it states the following: "However imperfect and error-prone science is, it remains our best tool at getting to the truth. The thing is, scientists are wrong so often not because they are clumsy, lying, or stupid. Scientists are wrong so often because the questions they ask are difficult ones—scientists seek truth, and truth is rare and elusive."

 

The "ether" where light traveled was science fact, until it wasn't.

 

The Earth being flat was science fact, until it wasn't.

 

Pluto was a planet, until it wasn't.

 

The Universe's expansion couldn't be speeding up, until it was.

 

Flies were thought to be spontaneously created, until they weren't.

 

Smoking was good for you, until it wasn't.

 

That isn't to say that Global Warming might not be exactly what current science says it is. But "Peer reviewed papers say it is true" doesn't exactly mean it is true.

 

Really quick...how did we prove those once facts, into falsehoods? I'm fairly certain it was the scientific method and peer-review that proved those things wrong

 

To rebut a specific example:

The Earth being flat was science fact, until it wasn't.

Actually, it was religion that stated the earth was flat, and people blindly followed it until someone used the scientific method to prove it wrong

[Franco 0]

I didn't say that was peer reviewed. But it was science fact at the time.

 

Again, I'm not saying Global warming doesn't exist, I don't know, the evidence seems to be it is without definitive proof of why. But I also know that scientists aren't dumb and they know how to follow the money. The US government spent 32 BILLION dollars on global warming research between 1989 and 2009. If the first few results were, "Nope, not happening", that is a lot of money that wouldn't have gone into the pockets of the scientists.

 

The evidence absolutely shows definitive proof that climate change is real and manmade

 

Also, in terms of money...how much money has the US government spent subsidizing the oil industry. You can't just pull the conspiracy card...address the evidence

[davislove 0]

You're absolutely right...things are sensationalized for ratings...but I noticed your sources aren't actually scientific papers...I'm agree with you that we should take what the media says with a grain of salt. But I'm not talking about the media. I'm talking about the actual scientists doing the research and publishing the papers

 

I don't have any published papers. I'm just a message board guy with an opinion. If we're just going to our corners citing "experts" that share our views then the discussion is pointless. I assume you can provide published papers and peer reviewed article but if I can't ask them questions, it does me no good.

 

 

You're absolutely right. We can't predict what the weather will be like in two days (super annoying), but it's actually easier to predict with longer timeframes. I like to use this analogy. We're unable to predict next week's weather right? But we are able to know for certain that it will get colder in two-three months...and then get warmer again 3 months after that

 

it's not that simple. We learned about the earth rotating on it's axis and revolving around the sun in grade school. We all can see and understand seasons. But I guess your scientist are telling us that seasons as we know it will change due to climate change. If predicting longer time frames were easier then we should know when our last day will be or thereabouts. Like I said earlier, I say a guy with a fancy title say by 2010 we were gonna be wiped out.

 

 

I assume these anecdotes are meant to argue that we shouldn't believe everything scientists say. On some level, that is true, but when it's the scientific method that proves things wrong that were once thought of as fact, that argument really goes out the window.

 

Scientists can change their mind based on new evidence. However, when it comes to climate change, it first started with the link between CO2 and temperature back in the 1800s. Then in the 1920s-30s, Scientists then say that the CO2 that man is dumping into the atmosphere may cause the earth to warm. And since then, there have been thousands of papers that confirm that premise

 

So what you are saying is there is a chance that scientist may change their mind?.

 

I get it. But I think you are talking as if you are lecturing in a classroom, I'm talking like we're in a bar. From an everyday standpoint, I see wine is good for you and then bad, same with red meat. My older relatives lived without being gluten free, they drank from a creek and could shake hands without purel and many of them lived a long life.

 

I respect the hell out of what you are saying and i'm not saying we shouldn't do better but this planet is pretty tough and I don't know if our actions are just a drop in a bucket.

[corysold 0]

The evidence absolutely shows definitive proof that climate change is real and manmade

 

Also, in terms of money...how much money has the US government spent subsidizing the oil industry. You can't just pull the conspiracy card...address the evidence

 

I don't know how much they spent. According to this article, not nearly as much as you think.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#58f5087a6e1c

[jessemoore97 1,278]

The evidence absolutely shows definitive proof that climate change is real and manmade

 

Also, in terms of money...how much money has the US government spent subsidizing the oil industry. You can't just pull the conspiracy card...address the evidence

 

So solar cycles or other natural phenomena have nothing to do with climate changes over millions of years? It's all manmade? Or what percentage?

 

Remember consensus or a majority does not equal causality. There have been many scientists who have questioned the validity of manmade climate change caused by and to what degree. They absolutely have been shouted down, attempted to be discredited, and outright locked out of publishing their findings and opinions by their peers.

[davislove 0]

The evidence absolutely shows definitive proof that climate change is real and manmade

 

Also, in terms of money...how much money has the US government spent subsidizing the oil industry. You can't just pull the conspiracy card...address the evidence

 

I don't know if it's a conspiracy card but rather people trying to get paid. Follow the money

 

Do you believe that supermarkets that sell reusable grocery bags care about the environment or trying to cut the cost of buying the plastic ones?

 

We've seen scientist wipe out diseases only to see them come back. But now they can't be cured but only treated with expensive medication.

 

psychiatrist profession is booming because they can prescribe the "good stuff". Now everyone has ADHD. And doctors are riding this gravy train to the wheels fall off imo.

 

I do believe in following the money and they use fear to sell stuff. Probably 2 of my biggest rules in life.

[Pregame 291]

I didn't say that was peer reviewed. But it was science fact at the time.

 

Again, I'm not saying Global warming doesn't exist, I don't know, the evidence seems to be it is without definitive proof of why. But I also know that scientists aren't dumb and they know how to follow the money. The US government spent 32 BILLION dollars on global warming research between 1989 and 2009. If the first few results were, "Nope, not happening", that is a lot of money that wouldn't have gone into the pockets of the scientists.

Sorry, I meant that in jest/got your overall point. Just easing the tension baby.

 

[ame=

]

[/ame]

[davislove 0]

So solar cycles or other natural phenomena have nothing to do with climate changes over millions of years? It's all manmade? Or what percentage?

 

Remember consensus or a majority does not equal causality. There have been many scientists who have questioned the validity of manmade climate change caused by and to what degree. They absolutely have been shouted down, attempted to be discredited, and outright locked out of publishing their findings and opinions by their peers.

 

Jesse, you seem to think everything is a liberal conspiracy.

[Franco 0]

I don't have any published papers. I'm just a message board guy with an opinion. If we're just going to our corners citing "experts" that share our views then the discussion is pointless. I assume you can provide published papers and peer reviewed article but if I can't ask them questions, it does me no good.

 

 

 

 

it's not that simple. We learned about the earth rotating on it's axis and revolving around the sun in grade school. We all can see and understand seasons. But I guess your scientist are telling us that seasons as we know it will change due to climate change. If predicting longer time frames were easier then we should know when our last day will be or thereabouts. Like I said earlier, I say a guy with a fancy title say by 2010 we were gonna be wiped out.

 

 

 

 

So what you are saying is there is a chance that scientist may change their mind?.

 

I get it. But I think you are talking as if you are lecturing in a classroom, I'm talking like we're in a bar. From an everyday standpoint, I see wine is good for you and then bad, same with red meat. My older relatives lived without being gluten free, they drank from a creek and could shake hands without purel and many of them lived a long life.

 

I respect the hell out of what you are saying and i'm not saying we shouldn't do better but this planet is pretty tough and I don't know if our actions are just a drop in a bucket.

 

all good my dude. My main thing is if people don't quite understand the science behind climate change, I'm more than willing to share what I know =). There's a lot of misinformation, half-truths, and basic misunderstanding of the scientific process and what is and is possible. But all we have to do is discuss!

 

And yup! I do have peer-reviewed scientific papers I can link

[davislove 0]

all good my dude. My main thing is if people don't quite understand the science behind climate change, I'm more than willing to share what I know =). There's a lot of misinformation, half-truths, and basic misunderstanding of the scientific process and what is and is possible. But all we have to do is discuss!

 

And yup! I do have peer-reviewed scientific papers I can link

 

I trust you. I'm clearly out of my depth in this discussion but it's cool that you take the time with someone who is probably more or less wasting your time.

 

I'm gonna observe from here on out. It's a good discussion though.

[jessemoore97 1,278]

Jesse, you seem to think everything is a liberal conspiracy.

 

I don't know where I brought up LIBERAL CONSPIRACY in anything. I'm actually right there with you on many of your points thus far. Taking politics out of it for a moment, the money train you alluded to is exactly why I was glad we pulled out of the Paris Accord. The US was going to have to pay a huge some of money, on the backs of its taxpayers, and watch it trickle down through many corrupt layers of bureaucrats and organizations before it gets to the intended target. Yet as we've seen thus far other nations haven't paid in their required share at all and have at less equal to or higher pollution output. So it's a wealth redistribution scheme.

[Franco 0]

I don't know how much they spent. According to this article, not nearly as much as you think.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#58f5087a6e1c

 

First thing, this article is an opinion piece. Forbes even states "Opinions stated by Forbes contributors are their own"...

 

Secondly, he didn't debunk anything. He's trying to spin subsidies to make it look like they aren't actually subsidies specifically for oil, which is fallacious and disingenuous

Edited October 19, 2018 by Franco

[Franco 0]

So solar cycles or other natural phenomena have nothing to do with climate changes over millions of years? It's all manmade? Or what percentage?

First off, no one has said it is all manmade...And yes, scientists point to things like solar cycles (which we're actually in a cycle of low levels of illumination from the sun). No one has said that other natural phenomena do not cause climate change. In fact, they have a word for it. It's called "Forcing"

 

For example, Orbital Forcing is when the eccentricity of the earth's orbit causes an initial heating. From there, CO2 will then lead the way causing what's called a positive feedback loop

 

Remember consensus or a majority does not equal causality.

I've never heard this...do you mean correlation does not equal causation? because I've heard of that

 

But in all seriousness, again, when there is an overwhelming consensus, it should stop you from automatically thinking to disregard what they say and to start asking "why do scientists insist that the earth is warming and it's manmade even though a handful of scientists state otherwise?"

 

There have been many scientists who have questioned the validity of manmade climate change caused by and to what degree. They absolutely have been shouted down, attempted to be discredited, and outright locked out of publishing their findings and opinions by their peers.

 

Again, please send me a link as to these certain situations

Edited October 19, 2018 by Franco

[Franco 0]

I don't know if it's a conspiracy card but rather people trying to get paid. Follow the money

 

Do you believe that supermarkets that sell reusable grocery bags care about the environment or trying to cut the cost of buying the plastic ones?

I agree...this whole plastic bag and straw ban is ****ing ridiculous and will not really put a dent in the damage we're doing to the oceans (not necessarily connected to climate change)

 

We've seen scientist wipe out diseases only to see them come back. But now they can't be cured but only treated with expensive medication.

 

psychiatrist profession is booming because they can prescribe the "good stuff". Now everyone has ADHD. And doctors are riding this gravy train to the wheels fall off imo.

 

I do believe in following the money and they use fear to sell stuff. Probably 2 of my biggest rules in life.

 

Again, please address the evidence provided by climate scientists on the premise of manmade climate change. We can go on and on about conspiracies and "follow the money" but I have yet to see any credible evidence that refutes climate change

[corysold 0]

Sorry, I meant that in jest/got your overall point. Just easing the tension baby.

 

 

Damn, my bad. I was even doing the timeline in my head. Ancient greek philosophers vs Egyptian papyrus, which came first?

 

Global warming debate messes with my normal line of thinking.

[irishwavend 571]

Again, please address the evidence provided by climate scientists on the premise of manmade climate change. We can go on and on about conspiracies and "follow the money" but I have yet to see any credible evidence that refutes climate change

 

There is plenty of credible evidence to refute man made climate change:

 

1. The temperature measuring systems are in heat sinks and/or malfunctioning often.

2. Data is selectively shown over decades versus millenia.

3. Sea levels have not risen.

4. Solar activity clearly has a substantial impact.

5. NASA has arbitrarily and selectively adjusted temperature measurements.

6. There has been no significant geological adjustments, i.e. no new deserts or new rainforests.

7. The BIGGEST is that Warren Buffet stated that there has been no substantially different impact to property risks from weather related incidents requiring actuarial adjustments to property insurance premiums. That's a public statement saying there's no impact!

8. The founder of the The Weather Channel even declared what a joke the climate issue is.

9. Climate hysteria has been going on for decades with very specific predictions, yet...where is it? The models are crap and the data is crap.

10. Tons of dissenting data that was deleted by the European agency on the matter.

 

I can go on and on. Hell, look around! We're fine and we'll be fine. Why? More heat means more evaporation. More evaporation means more moisture. More moisture and more carbon means more vegetation and farmland. More vegetation and farmland means more people eat. And, don't give me the "more extreme weather" bit, because Buffet has confirmed it that the risk of property damage has not changed over the years. If the risk hasn't changed, it means the weather or severity of the weather hasn't changed over the years, meaning that the overall climate hasn't changed.

 

Refute that!

 

Again, climate science is nothing but garbage in/garbage out climate data with greedy professors appropriating "science" for their own personal benefit.

[Franco 0]

There is plenty of credible evidence to refute man made climate change:

 

I'm just gonna say this right now...you really gotta be more specific and provide sources so I can look into it. You can't just make overarching statements but I'll go ahead and try to respond to them below

 

1. The temperature measuring systems are in heat sinks and/or malfunctioning often. This one, I can't even respond to because I don't know which temperature measuring systems you're referring to...was it UW, NOAA, RSS, or UAH? Those are the four main ones

2. Data is selectively shown over decades versus millenia.That is absolutely and demonstrably false

3. Sea levels have not risen. And? In any case, that's false, it has risen a few centimeters in the past 100 years. But I get it, that's not really life threatening. But again, no one said the sea levels has risen significantly in the past hundred or so years...What they ARE saying is that it WILL rise.

4. Solar activity clearly has a substantial impact.Again, no scientist has refuted this. In fact, they factor in solar activity into their measurements

5. NASA has arbitrarily and selectively adjusted temperature measurements. Yes, they adjust temperatures. This isn't the conspiracy you're making it out to be. They adjust temps to account for any changes in the surrounding area of the temp stations. For example, city growth around stations. Because of any surrounding changes, they also REDUCE temp readings to account for unnatural heating affects like something called the Urban Heat Island effect (generally, urban areas tend to be significantly warmer than the surrounding area)

6. There has been no significant geological adjustments, i.e. no new deserts or new rainforests. What's your point? Not sure what this has to do with climate change, but I honestly could be mistaken.

7. The BIGGEST is that Warren Buffet stated that there has been no substantially different impact to property risks from weather related incidents requiring actuarial adjustments to property insurance premiums. That's a public statement saying there's no impact!He also stated "It seems highly likely to me that climate change poses a major problem for the planet" sooooooo....

8. The founder of the The Weather Channel even declared what a joke the climate issue is. He's a weatherman with a Bachelors in Journalism, not a climate scientist...

9. Climate hysteria has been going on for decades with very specific predictions, yet...where is it? The models are crap and the data is crap. You're right...climate hysteria has been going on for decades...by the media. Like I keep saying, address the scientific literature. They clearly quantify what they believe would be the effects of climate change in temperature and sea level readings. You will NOT find emotional words like catastrophic or hysteria in any scientific papers because those words mean different things to different people. Also, how are the models crap?

10. Tons of dissenting data that was deleted by the European agency on the matter. I assume you're referring to the email controversy...which was completely overblown and taken out of context

 

I can go on and on. Hell, look around! We're fine and we'll be fine. Why? More heat means more evaporation. More evaporation means more moisture. More moisture and more carbon means more vegetation and farmland. More vegetation and farmland means more people eat. And, don't give me the "more extreme weather" bit, because Buffet has confirmed it that the risk of property damage has not changed over the years.

 

First off, are you really using Warren Buffet as a source? And secondly, I looked into it, he also says, "As a citizen, you may understandably find climate change keeping you up nights," he writes. "As a homeowner in a low-lying area, you may wish to consider moving. But when you are thinking only as a shareholder of a major insurer, climate change should not be on your list of worries." Also, please see my quote above...And lastly he says "Berk made commitments to the future develope of renewables in support of the Paris Climate Agreement. Our fulfilling those promises will make great sense both for the environment and for Berk's economics"

 

Basically, he isn't saying that climate change isn't a thing because business has been "business as usual" It just so happens that it hasn't affected his business YET.

 

Now to the part about vegetation and farmland...

No one said that CO2 isn't a bonus for vegetation and farmland, but what study below IS saying is that drought, flooding, and heat stress due to climate change will more than offset the benefits derived from higher concentrations of CO2 for plant growth

 

"Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios" -- Parry et al, Global Environmental Change 2004

edit: wanted to include the link to the paper cited above: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/1090_foodproduction.pdf

 

If the risk hasn't changed, it means the weather or severity of the weather hasn't changed over the years, meaning that the overall climate hasn't changed.

 

Refute that!

Lastly, I want to point out that Buffet doesnt' speak for all insurers...Other insurers have already expressed concern about these changes. Carl Hedde, head of risk accumulation for insurer Munich Re America, says: “The number of loss-relevant, weather-related natural catastrophes worldwide has almost tripled since 1980 […] we do think that the warming climate – depending on region and peril concerned – does play a certain role.” Edited October 19, 2018 by Franco

[Soko 128]

I don't know where I brought up LIBERAL CONSPIRACY in anything. I'm actually right there with you on many of your points thus far. Taking politics out of it for a moment, the money train you alluded to is exactly why I was glad we pulled out of the Paris Accord. The US was going to have to pay a huge some of money, on the backs of its taxpayers, and watch it trickle down through many corrupt layers of bureaucrats and organizations before it gets to the intended target. Yet as we've seen thus far other nations haven't paid in their required share at all and have at less equal to or higher pollution output. So it's a wealth redistribution scheme.

 

What?

 

The US pulled out of the Paris Accord so it wouldn't have to abide by strict emissions standards and risk leaving developing nations drive ahead with dirtier, polluting energy polices and manufacturing practices. There is some merit in that but to be literally the only country in the world with it's head in the sand is beyond embarrassing. But that's par for the course these days being a laughing stock.

 

There is a 97% consensus amongst published studies that climate change is man made. That's about all that can be said.

 

When the president says that UN reports have an agenda then you just need to throw your hands in the air and say **** it, what's the point.