Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'

Post Reply New Topic

I have. I'm just not seeing it through your lens.

Try harder.

The so-called "97% of climate scientists" is a bunch of baloney. It is a created statistic designed to make people think that they are going along with the majority and are safe in holding opinions on matters that they know nothing of.

Several years ago, a proponent of Global Warming Disaster went through a number of journal papers having to do with climate and counted everything that he could possibly rationalize, even if with faulty rationalization, as supporting the notion that mankind has anything to do with a warming trend, even if one 1% responsible. Anyone who was the author of such a paper was counted as being in support of manmade Global Warming.

A number of the authors of those papers said their papers were completely mischaracterized by the analysis.

An independent analysis of the same set of papers found that the actual agreement was very much smaller. I don't remember how much smaller, but I think it was in single digits.

Even if the original 97% had been correct, it would have only been that mankind has at least a minimal responsibility for Global Warming. On all other matters about Global Warming including whether or not it is a matter to be seriously concerned about have no such consensus.

A few climate scientists are somewhat worried by it, but many aren't. The only climate scientist I know laughs at the notion of Global Warming and thinks that there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about.

So your 97% of climate scientists is a bogus and meaningless statistic of less importance than whether your dog has fleas.

Mmhmm, please tell me more about how burning ever more fossil fuels & chopping down forests isn't contributing to warming effects cause by building GHG's in Earth's atmosphere.

You missed the entire point, didn't you?

Or is it just too inconvenient to be concerned about relying on such bogus statistics?

Have you paid any attention to the contributions of forum member cberg on this issue?

Koko is the one who brought up that warmer air carries more moisture--I'm just letting him know that warmer moister air means more rainfall in hurricanes too, as well as more overall precipitation. I know it's pointless to argue with him, but someone reading along with the thread might be reached with factual information so I will continue to provide it for those people.

Some climate models, but not all, show an increase in rain in hurricanes. There is pretty much no evidence to indicate that is actually happening.

The hurricane that hit the Texas Gulf Coast and flooded so much of Houston and the area around it did so because it stalled. Instead of passing on through like a normal hurricane, it stayed and dropped a lot more water. If it had behaved like a normal hurricane, it would have kept moving and little or no flooding would have been present.

That has happened before. One hurricane (I think in the mid to late 1970s) stalled over League City, Texas and dumped enormous amounts of rain for about 24 hours. Much of that area flooded then.

By your logic, the greater winds would have been more likely to keep it moving.

Can you post some evidence from climate scientists to support your claims? I've done so.

Where was this?

I only saw the one article from the Guardian. How many climate scientists work for the Guardian?

The Guardian article is about a study, and the authors of the study (you know, the scientists) are quoted in the article explaining their study and what it found. So those scientists. There are other studies, all you have to do is google the topic in your claim like I did and there is lots of information at your fingertips. The Guardian was the only one I linked because I didn't want to bombard the thread as it's not about hurricanes, but there are other studies and articles out there that support my claim.

I think there's no dispute there will be rising sea levels, loss of arable land and ecosystem collapse as a result of global warming in the next 100 yrs.

I also suspect there will be enormous loss of life (probably in the developing world) where infrastructure is unable to adapt to changing circumstances (loss of primary produce) due to lack of resources. Rising sea levels will inundate coastal communities.

I partially agree with Kokopelli that humanity will probably survive around the wealthy western countries who can invest in switching crop production using advanced farming methods and ultimately when the air becomes unbreathable self-sustaining biospheres for the chosen few to live. Earth will resemble a colonised planet like Mars in 100-200 years.

The point at which it starts to become unbreathable is in the 2500 to 5000 ppm range. I don't know that we even have that much potential CO2 to put into the atmosphere.

The impression I get from some who make lots of posts here about climate change science, is that what they know of it stems from articles they read where the journalist who wrote the it does most of the talking.

As I said, it was about a study done by climate scientists, who were interviewed for the article. The study was published in the journal Nature and is linked directly in the article, if you'd like to read it yourself. I know you like to think I'm just a hysterical degenerate liberal but there is actual information behind the claims I make that I provide with my claims, information from informed sources. I'm sorry that information doesn't jam with your worldview, but take it up with the people who did the research and collected the information and not with me for passing it along.

There's always an appreciable difference between those who have a working knowledge of something and those who have read articles about something. I see that in discussions about autism all the time. Generally there's nothing wrong with knowing about something via reading articles about it. But that kind of knowledge doesn't hold up to those who display an in depth comprehensive working knowledge of the subject.