Planet has until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change

Post Reply New Topic

Probably because he skimmed Wikipedia or a climate change website too fast.

97% of climate scientists agree with each other. Scientists agree on things for which there is enough evidences; you can't deny things like evolution, germs theory, or that the Earth is round; unless you have evidences against them the supersede all the previous evidences.

Temperature measurements are not the only evidences of global warming: melting glaciers, decline of sea ice, rise of sea level, change in weather patterns, migration of species, series of heat waves, ecological changes and so on.
Climate change deniers should try to collect evidences; this is with evidences that scientific consensus is changing. Of course, those evidences first need to be found, if they exists.

People who accept that man made climate change science is real and that this truly is a very serious threat to our planet and all life forms on it aren’t really interested in gloating with “I told you so,” statements 5-10 years from now. We’re spreading the word about this stuff so that people can take action and do something about it ASAP for the benefit of themselves, our planet, and all life on Earth. That’s it.

I have similar views on medicine, but it seems science deniers prefer the wait 5-10 years for me to say “I told you so,” instead. For personal health, whatever, that’s those peoples’ loss.. but for the health of our planet and all life forms on it? That sort of denier ignorance is going to harm everyone.

Do 97% of climatologists, meteorologists, biologists, zoologists et al agree with climate scientist?

There is climate change...no doubt about it. Mainstream research supports it.

The question is: Why?

Exactly.

Or does making that statement just make you an ignorant uneducated denier?

Also do universities offer a climate change scientist degree? Could I get a PhD in climate change science?

"Climate change science" covers various sciences like meteorology and geology. And various branches of meteorology and geology. And some other sciences I can't think of at the moment.

Scientists have told us why. Human activity.

Burning fossil fuels, chopping down forests, over fishing seas, factory farming animals for slaughter etc etc.

Denying the obvious is akin to smokers continuing to deny smoking causes cancer.

It is possible that "normal climactic variation" could be behind it, too.

I tend to believe in man-made agents causing it, though.

“Normal climactic variation,” didn’t do this in less than a century. We did.

Scientists aren’t getting rich being scientists. They’re trying to save us.

Deniers like trump, OTOH, have substantial wealth to gain by exploiting resources to the max.

I side with the smart people trying their best to save us all.

According to Glass Door I'm seeing $85,000 to $114,000 per year being offered under the listing for climate change science jobs.

As for smart people, what percentage of scientists who aren't climate change scientists, agree with them? Although I have a feeling it's become one of those things like PC enforcement that one dares not go along with publicly.

I think there could also be a situation where it's increasing because it's being studied so much, every little thing gets picked up on, that didn't get didn't get picked up on before so it appears to be increasing.

It’s a sad day when the leader of the free world has silenced his own country’s scientists & convinced their youth to ignore facts and support his personal agenda of war & profit instead.

That's some pretty maudlin diatribe.

I think that the 97% figure came from a bunch of people looking at published papers looking for reasons to claim that they supported the idea of Global Warming to some degree. Nobody really knows what the real figure would be.

More importantly, it doesn't support any claim that there is a consensus among them that Global Warming is a disaster.

I wonder if because everybody is laser-focused on CO2 as the cause of global warming scientists are overlooking the urban heat island effect. Our population is growing to which require more forests to be replaced by concrete which retains heat. There are so many areas that are exurbs and suburbs now. Sometimes it is hard to tell when one metropolitan region ends and the neighboring one begins. Temperatures at night under the right conditions can be 20 degrees lower at night in surrounding rural areas than in the urban centers. The jet streams move this warmer air around.

^A lot of things have been overlooked - that’s how we Know it’s much worse than the worst case scenarios currently predict.

I read recently that we need to decrease our GHG emissions by 25% just to maintain the current level of warmijgbcaused by GHG emissions because the ice is melting and Earth no longer gets the cooling effect of white ice reflecting light back out to space.. no more white t-shirt = we’re getting burnt. Also, trapped methane and other gases are being released out of the melting ice.

I also read this year that, until very recently, scientists overlooked decomposing plastics as a source of GHG. Billions of tonnes of plastic slowly decomposing in UV light is giving off gases we never accounted for - likely a significant amount.

I’m sure there are other under-estimations and oversights, too.

It’s WAY worse than the UN report states.