CO2 – Dumb question

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Nicholas Farr on 16/08/2022 10:46:50:

Hi Hopper, I agree that there is an infinite number of possibilities for the past, as an example, if neither of the two world wars didn't happen, as horrific they were, myself and my siblings would not have been born and the first world war was more important as my mother wasn't conceived until my grandfather came back from four years away while in the Royal Field Artillery. Feynman's view may well be valid, but not all theories result in reality. In my view, if all of the past that happened before I was conceived was different, I wouldn't be making this comment.

Regards Nick.

 

 

…

Nick,

Here is what Stephen Hawking (reputed to be the world's smartest bloke) has to say about Feynman's theories so far:

'Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history."

So that is not to say that the past history of your family and your own arising from it does not exist. It does. But it is one of many (in fact all possible) pasts that exist.

It is too complex to go into all the background in a forum post, (one of many shortfalls of Google research) you would have to read the books on it to get a fuller understanding. Hawking's "The Grand Design" is quite accessible to the layman (even I can read and follow it) and well worth a read. But as he points out, much of quantum mechanics in totally counter-intuitive from our accepted Newtonian view that allows us, given complete present data, to calculate a complete picture of the past that matches our "intuitive understanding that, whether painful or joyful, the world has a definite past". He then goes on with the first quote above in italics to discredit this viewpoint.

Newtonian physics laws and our intuitive sense of the past arising from it were superseded by the quantum physics' crazy-sounding counter-intuitive laws about 100 years ago by Einstein et al in the 1920s. But Newtonian physics still provide a good "effective theory" for predicting how macro objects will behave in our everyday world, and do in fact arise from quantum laws, Hawking says.

Of Quantum physics he says "It leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts, rather than determining the future and past with certainty. Though that is distasteful to some, scientists must accept theories that agree with experiment, not their own preconceived notions". (He explains at length the many experiments that have proved conclusively since Feynman's day that his quantum laws stand up to every test they are given and have never once failed when tested by the best minds and technology since.

It's crazy-sounding stuff that challenges our long held intuitions and "common sense" as well as outdated Newtonian physics. But always remember: a man who never changed his mind never thought about anything.

Edited By Hopper on 16/08/2022 12:00:26

Edited By Hopper on 16/08/2022 12:00:52

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 16/08/2022 11:23:18:

Posted by Robin on 16/08/2022 00:27:18:

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 22:49:42:

On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

No argument. Just noise.

How about Historian David Starkey?

Is he an "armchair Google researcher"?

Probably. Mr Starkey has no scientific training or experience in this subject. I find his opinions interesting but he's an historian with provocative conservative political views described as 'the rudest man in Britain'. I'd say he's exactly the sort of unqualified chap who feeds folk what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

As he makes a good living by being controversial I suggest Mr Starkey's input to the climate debate is low-value. Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate.

Dave

"Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate"

Dave. In what way are you qualified to make that assessment of Mr Starkey – or is it just your opinion?

Martin.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by blowlamp on 16/08/2022 14:07:01:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 16/08/2022 11:23:18:

Posted by Robin on 16/08/2022 00:27:18:

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 22:49:42:

On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

No argument. Just noise.

How about Historian David Starkey?

Is he an "armchair Google researcher"?

Probably. Mr Starkey has no scientific training or experience in this subject. I find his opinions interesting but he's an historian with provocative conservative political views described as 'the rudest man in Britain'. I'd say he's exactly the sort of unqualified chap who feeds folk what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

As he makes a good living by being controversial I suggest Mr Starkey's input to the climate debate is low-value. Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate.

Dave

"Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate"

Dave. In what way are you qualified to make that assessment of Mr Starkey – or is it just your opinion?

Martin.

The statement wasn't specifically aimed at Mr Starkey, it's universally true. Engineering, science, and technology are all based on measurable facts, not unjustified guesswork.

But I think it applies to Mr Starkey. I don't think my opinion of him is unjustified because I've not found any evidence in his statements that gainsays global warming. Perhaps I missed it. Can you put me right?

What did Mr Starkey say to convince you global warming isn't a problem and why do you believe a historian but not a consensus of specialists?

Dave

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

The thing about science is that it's all of a piece. If you accept the method and the fact that in the areas where you have direct experience the results work, then you really have to accept the results in other areas even if you don't like them. Personally I've spent my career in advance engineering and have found that the science always works as it says on the tin and the method is the most powerful tool we have to understand nature.  Oh, and the other thing is, it works even if you don't believe it.

But this thread seems to be generating much more heat than light and I suggest that it be closed so people can get on with more useful stuff.

Edited By John Haine on 16/08/2022 15:44:08

[Swarf, Mostly!Participant @swarfmostly]

Posted by John Haine on 16/08/2022 15:19:55:

SNIP!

But this thread seems to be generating much more heat than light and I suggest that it be closed so people can get on with more useful stuff.

Edited By John Haine on 16/08/2022 15:44:08

I agree with John. All this thread is doing since about page 4 is filling up 0s and 1s in the server's 'bits of grit' and moving us closer to the day we have to subscribe to the forum via PayPal or equivalent.

Best regards,

Swarf, Mostly!

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

Yes I agree with Swarf, Mostly…….let's just get back to "latheing"

Regards to all

Derek

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 16/08/2022 14:57:46:

Posted by blowlamp on 16/08/2022 14:07:01:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 16/08/2022 11:23:18:

Posted by Robin on 16/08/2022 00:27:18:

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 22:49:42:

On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

No argument. Just noise.

How about Historian David Starkey?

Is he an "armchair Google researcher"?

Probably. Mr Starkey has no scientific training or experience in this subject. I find his opinions interesting but he's an historian with provocative conservative political views described as 'the rudest man in Britain'. I'd say he's exactly the sort of unqualified chap who feeds folk what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

As he makes a good living by being controversial I suggest Mr Starkey's input to the climate debate is low-value. Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate.

Dave

"Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate"

Dave. In what way are you qualified to make that assessment of Mr Starkey – or is it just your opinion?

Martin.

The statement wasn't specifically aimed at Mr Starkey, it's universally true. Engineering, science, and technology are all based on measurable facts, not unjustified guesswork.

But I think it applies to Mr Starkey. I don't think my opinion of him is unjustified because I've not found any evidence in his statements that gainsays global warming. Perhaps I missed it. Can you put me right?

What did Mr Starkey say to convince you global warming isn't a problem and why do you believe a historian but not a consensus of specialists?

Dave

"The statement wasn't specifically aimed at Mr Starkey, it's universally true. Engineering, science, and technology are all based on measurable facts, not unjustified guesswork."

You wrote six lines of text & mentioned him twice, by name, near the beginning and the end, so it certainly was aimed at him and only him.

"But I think it applies to Mr Starkey. I don't think my opinion of him is unjustified because I've not found any evidence in his statements that gainsays global warming. Perhaps I missed it. Can you put me right?"

Your opinion is as justified as his. However, you went on to rubbish his opinion because he's not a 'climate scientist' and you also made unwarranted accusations about his ethics. Whether he is right or wrong on this matter, it's a dirty tactic to use and one which I find unconvincing.

"What did Mr Starkey say to convince you global warming isn't a problem and why do you believe a historian but not a consensus of specialists?"

Nothing at all. I didn't know he even had a view on global warming.

Where have I said "global warming isn't a problem"?

I don't know if a higher level of CO2 is a problem for mankind. All I have mentioned & asked about is whether higher CO2 levels are due solely to human activity or could other factors be involved?

As a moderator you should be responding to what's written and should not be putting a slant on my words to suit your personal bias.

Martin.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Oh dear, I've upset Martin and it wasn't me who introduced David Starkey. Mr Starkey has strong opinions about many subjects including this one. Having pointed out I couldn't find any evidence in Mr Starkey's pronouncements on climate change, I asked if Martin could point some out, and was attacked instead. Don't worry Martin – David Starkey is able to look after himself. Martin also posted in favour of Piers Corbyn; Mr Corbyn is controversial too!

Martin says I don't know if a higher level of CO2 is a problem for mankind. All I have mentioned & asked about is whether higher CO2 levels are due solely to human activity or could other factors be involved? I think several posts have already tackled this question and anyone who wishes to check can read back through the thread.

My point is that opinions without evidence have no value in a technical debate. Surely that's not controversial?

Dave

PS As a moderator I implement the Terms and Conditions and Code of Conduct.

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 16/08/2022 20:46:22

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Dave.

In case you are unaware: Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College…

I think that probably makes him a scientist that you should respect.

Actually, no one has explained the mechanism CO2 has in connection with global warming in this thread, least of all you. Your last explanation of this to me was simply a wall of waffle.

Dave said in a previous explanation of global warming – my comments in bold:

I'll try again:

1. The sun shines on the earth. Me: At this point, is the Sun's energy on the Earth's surface, or just on its way?
2. Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon are all transparent, i.e. not resonant with, the energy frequencies arriving from the sun, so they allow energy to arrive and leave equally well. Me: So Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are not good at holding onto the Sun's heat energy?
3. Water vapour, Methane and Carbon Dioxide are resonant with heat frequencies, so they are not transparent. Heat is retained by them. Me: So Water vapour, Methane and CO2 are good at holding onto the Sun's heat energy?
4. When solar radiation hits the surface a proportion of the energy is converted into heat resonant with Water vapour, Methane, and Carbon Dioxide, Me: What proportion of this energy that hits the surface was retained on the way in by Water vapour, Methane, and Carbon Dioxide? The energy is absorbed by those molecules, which cool by warming up the adjacent Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. Heat is retained again. Me: How is Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon now able to remove heat from Water vapour, Methane and Carbon Dioxide, whilst being less conductive and what effect does this have?
5. In the past it was thought the oceans would dissolve all the Carbon Dioxide produced by humans, but measurements show the sea only captures about half causing the amount of CO2 in the air to grow. Both have been measured. Me: You need to be more specific with where this data's sourced from.
6. Water vapour is not guilty of global warming because the amount in the air stays much the same. It's balanced because water is removed from the atmosphere by rain and snow. Me: Any evidence of this? Seems counterintuitive considering how wildly weather is reported to be changing.
7. The warmer atmosphere created by greenhouse gases acts as a blanket, keeping heat closer to the surface for longer than before. Me: You first need to show 'greenhouse gases' are a cause and not an effect. Land and sea both absorb and re-radiate heat like giant firebricks. Me: Of course – what else could they do?

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by blowlamp on 16/08/2022 18:05:14:

…

I don't know if a higher level of CO2 is a problem for mankind. All I have mentioned & asked about is whether higher CO2 levels are due solely to human activity or could other factors be involved?

That's the problem. You don't know. But 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists say that manmade CO2 emissions are a huge problem, driving the current global warming. Argue with them about it, not some guy on an internet forum. They are the experts. They do know. You, by your own admission, don't.

 

Edited By Hopper on 17/08/2022 06:37:58

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Posted by Hopper on 16/08/2022 11:57:22:

Posted by Nicholas Farr on 16/08/2022 10:46:50:

Hi Hopper, I agree that there is an infinite number of possibilities for the past, as an example, if neither of the two world wars didn't happen, as horrific they were, myself and my siblings would not have been born and the first world war was more important as my mother wasn't conceived until my grandfather came back from four years away while in the Royal Field Artillery. Feynman's view may well be valid, but not all theories result in reality. In my view, if all of the past that happened before I was conceived was different, I wouldn't be making this comment.

Regards Nick.

…

Nick,

Here is what Stephen Hawking (reputed to be the world's smartest bloke) has to say about Feynman's theories so far:

'Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history."

So that is not to say that the past history of your family and your own arising from it does not exist. It does. But it is one of many (in fact all possible) pasts that exist.

It is too complex to go into all the background in a forum post, (one of many shortfalls of Google research) you would have to read the books on it to get a fuller understanding. Hawking's "The Grand Design" is quite accessible to the layman (even I can read and follow it) and well worth a read. But as he points out, much of quantum mechanics in totally counter-intuitive from our accepted Newtonian view that allows us, given complete present data, to calculate a complete picture of the past that matches our "intuitive understanding that, whether painful or joyful, the world has a definite past". He then goes on with the first quote above in italics to discredit this viewpoint.

Newtonian physics laws and our intuitive sense of the past arising from it were superseded by the quantum physics' crazy-sounding counter-intuitive laws about 100 years ago by Einstein et al in the 1920s. But Newtonian physics still provide a good "effective theory" for predicting how macro objects will behave in our everyday world, and do in fact arise from quantum laws, Hawking says.

Of Quantum physics he says "It leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts, rather than determining the future and past with certainty. Though that is distasteful to some, scientists must accept theories that agree with experiment, not their own preconceived notions". (He explains at length the many experiments that have proved conclusively since Feynman's day that his quantum laws stand up to every test they are given and have never once failed when tested by the best minds and technology since.

It's crazy-sounding stuff that challenges our long held intuitions and "common sense" as well as outdated Newtonian physics. But always remember: a man who never changed his mind never thought about anything.

Edited By Hopper on 16/08/2022 12:00:26

Edited By Hopper on 16/08/2022 12:00:52

Hi Hopper, I'm aware that Steven Hawking was a very intellectual man, but like everyone else he was not infallible, but I wouldn't have been able to challenge him, but I do think the universe is far too vast and complex for one person to understand everything about it. Although quantum physics may say the universe has no single past or history, I'm sure as I can be of the only past and history of my life and as I have already said, there were infinite possibilities during my life which would have steered it in a different direction, there may well other many other pasts that exist, but I have not been in them and I'm as sure as I can be that I've only existed in the one that has happened. An uncle of mine was an expert in his field (although not in physics) and when I asked him an important question that I trusted he would know, he couldn't give me a definitive answer, but gave me good guidance on the things I should think about before making a final decision. He concluded by saying to remember that even the best experts get some things wrong.

Regards Nick.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Nick

Hawking was mostly quoting Feynman and a slew of other physicists since on this stuff, including Einstein and Wheeler. Today it is the general scientific consensus that Feynman was right. And as Hawking says, every conceivable experiment/test over the past 100 years or so has upheld the laws of quantum physics, as crazy and unbelievable as they seem. Food for thought anyway.

Hopper.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Hopper on 17/08/2022 06:20:59:

Posted by blowlamp on 16/08/2022 18:05:14:

…

I don't know if a higher level of CO2 is a problem for mankind. All I have mentioned & asked about is whether higher CO2 levels are due solely to human activity or could other factors be involved?

That's the problem. You don't know. But 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists say that manmade CO2 emissions are a huge problem, driving the current global warming. Argue with them about it, not some guy on an internet forum. They are the experts. They do know. You, by your own admission, don't.

Edited By Hopper on 17/08/2022 06:37:58

97% of climate scientists agree do they? To believe that cock & bull, someone would have had to ask every single one of them their opinion. That same someone would also need to be sure he's asking actual experts and not those that simply pass themselves off as climate experts.

It seems to have passed you by, but Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College… So why should anyone listen to you when you're no expert yourself?

It seems that being the character that you are, you have 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing' syndrome and that's why you're cocky with your comments to those that don't agree with you.

If you knew and understood this topic, you might have posted a detailed, step-by-step explanation, but I don't see that anywhere.

You claim to follow the experts, but in reality, you jump on the most popular bandwagon and back it as if it were your own. This can be seen repeatedly in your dismissive remarks about any scientist with differing ideas to what's fashionable at the moment.

Martin.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by Hopper on 17/08/2022 09:22:48:

Nick

Hawking was mostly quoting Feynman and a slew of other physicists since on this stuff, including Einstein and Wheeler. Today it is the general scientific consensus that Feynman was right. And as Hawking says, every conceivable experiment/test over the past 100 years or so has upheld the laws of quantum physics, as crazy and unbelievable as they seem. Food for thought anyway.

Hopper.

I don't understand quantum physics, so taking a lead from several contributors to this thread I've decided it's all rubbish, just a fiendish plan cooked up by a secret cabal.

Edited By duncan webster on 17/08/2022 20:39:27

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 15:24:23:

Posted by duncan webster on 15/08/2022 15:10:14:

Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more

 

Yeah, don't leave us hanging.

 

Martin.

I never got round to answering this. For the benefit of non British folk, Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the UK Labour Party, as well as an anti-semitic supporter of any rag rag terrorist group. He was also anti NATO and anti EU (he reckoned it was a capitalist plot). Thankfully he was defeated at the last General election and has been thrown out of Labour.

And I also forgot to mention that as well as being a climate change denier, brother Piers Corbyn is also a leading anti vaxxer. His views on the grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon are unknown

Edited By duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:46:16

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by blowlamp on 17/08/2022 20:10:44:

Posted by Hopper on 17/08/2022 06:20:59:

Posted by blowlamp on 16/08/2022 18:05:14:

…

I don't know if a higher level of CO2 is a problem for mankind. All I have mentioned & asked about is whether higher CO2 levels are due solely to human activity or could other factors be involved?

That's the problem. You don't know. But 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists say that manmade CO2 emissions are a huge problem, driving the current global warming. Argue with them about it, not some guy on an internet forum. They are the experts. They do know. You, by your own admission, don't.

 

Edited By Hopper on 17/08/2022 06:37:58

 

97% of climate scientists agree do they? To believe that cock & bull, someone would have had to ask every single one of them their opinion. That same someone would also need to be sure he's asking actual experts and not those that simply pass themselves off as climate experts.

[… personal insults deleted here … ]

 

The facts: LINK . Condensed version copied below.

Piers Corbyn would be among the other 3%, part of the normal dissent that is a healthy part of the standard scientific process, if he has published a scientific paper on the subject.

 

"The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among actively publishing climatologists. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus – the American Association of Petroleum Geologists – and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.

In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade. It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial."

Edited By Hopper on 17/08/2022 23:56:01

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by duncan webster on 17/08/2022 20:39:02:

Posted by Hopper on 17/08/2022 09:22:48:

Nick

Hawking was mostly quoting Feynman and a slew of other physicists since on this stuff, including Einstein and Wheeler. Today it is the general scientific consensus that Feynman was right. And as Hawking says, every conceivable experiment/test over the past 100 years or so has upheld the laws of quantum physics, as crazy and unbelievable as they seem. Food for thought anyway.

Hopper.

I don't understand quantum physics, so taking a lead from several contributors to this thread I've decided it's all rubbish, just a fiendish plan cooked up by a secret cabal.

Edited By duncan webster on 17/08/2022 20:39:27

Global domination by a one-world government, that's the endgame for the quantum physicists. We'll all be driving particle accelerators if they are allowed to continue.

[Paul RhodesParticipant @paulrhodes20292]

Hopper ,

I assume you have not read the first paper you quoted (Doran and Zimmerman), The 97% that fixates you was derived from a two minute internet “survey” which had a response rate of 30%. . So of the more than 10,000 scientist surveyed but 76 of 79 who were “climate experts” by the definition of the authors ,agreed that temps had risen and humans were a significant contributor.

96.2% of a sub- group representing 8.5% of respondents, which itself represented only 30% of those polled is a trivial amount. Crudely it is 76 out of 10,257 earth scientists.

No where was your magic 97% mentioned

I draw no conclusions as the paper is so flimsy. It is depressingly common in these internet debates for the frequent posters to assume that hundreds of twigs of “ evidence” gathered together weigh the same as a sizeable limb from a tree. They do ….but…..

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Paul Rhodes on 18/08/2022 02:39:13:

Hopper ,

I assume you have not read the first paper you quoted (Doran and Zimmerman), The 97% that fixates you was derived from a two minute internet “survey” which had a response rate of 30%. . So of the more than 10,000 scientist surveyed but 76 of 79 who were “climate experts” by the definition of the authors ,agreed that temps had risen and humans were a significant contributor.

96.2% of a sub- group representing 8.5% of respondents, which itself represented only 30% of those polled is a trivial amount. Crudely it is 76 out of 10,257 earth scientists.

No where was your magic 97% mentioned

I draw no conclusions as the paper is so flimsy. It is depressingly common in these internet debates for the frequent posters to assume that hundreds of twigs of “ evidence” gathered together weigh the same as a sizeable limb from a tree. They do ….but…..

 

You are cherry picking again.

I did not quote Doran and Zimmerman. I pointed to the larger survey that points to Doran and Zimmerman amongst thousands of others including, from my post "Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming."

I have read the full PDF of the Doran article here **LINK** . The over 3,000 scientists who responded to it were a mixture of mostly geophysicists, geochemists, oceanographers, hydrologists, paleontologists, climatologists, and the like who have expert-level knowledge of and work in areas of climate science. They are the experts working the field of climate science, ie the climate scientists. A sample size of 3,000 is well more than enough to predict an overall result within an accuracy of less than plus or minus 2 per cent.

But that is just one extensive survey among many that have confirmed the close to unanimous consensus on global warming among the scientific community. That is why all the world's peak scientific organisations accept the consensus as a nominal 97 per cent. **LINK** Survey results vary from 90 to 100 per cent. But 97 is the most commonly found result.

Anyhow there is no point in arguing with me, just some guy on an internet forum, about it. Go argue with the scientists and the world's leading scientific bodies. They are the ones who say manmade global warming is a problem. I am just pointing you to what the experts in the field say, the established scientific knowledge.

As a famous man once said, When I point my finger at the moon, do not mistake my finger for the moon.

 

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 04:58:21

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

PS here is an interesting graphic that sums up our situation. That is us laymen somewhere off the edge of the left of the drawing at the bottom. The greater the level of expertise in climate science, the greater the consensus global warming is manmade at the top right. You want to be listening to the guys on the right of this chart, not the left.

 

 

Source: LINK

 

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 05:14:36

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Posted by Hopper on 17/08/2022 09:22:48:

Nick

Hawking was mostly quoting Feynman and a slew of other physicists since on this stuff, including Einstein and Wheeler. Today it is the general scientific consensus that Feynman was right. And as Hawking says, every conceivable experiment/test over the past 100 years or so has upheld the laws of quantum physics, as crazy and unbelievable as they seem. Food for thought anyway.

Hopper.

Hi Hopper, I have not denied the endless possibilities, however out of all the millions of sperm that could have fertilised the egg that I developed from, only one did and that could only have happened at the time and place it did, any other sperm or time and place would have resulted in someone else. I know that fertilised eggs can produce identical twins etc. but even they are not 100% identical in mind or body. I don't believe in the so called "parallel universe's" concept, but even if they do exist, I'm not in any of them. Now I'm also not denying that other universe's don't exists as "Space" has no dimension and we will probably never know if there are any and of course their physics could be totally different to ours.

Regards Nick.

[Paul RhodesParticipant @paulrhodes20292]

Posted by Hopper on 18/08/2022 04:22:08:

Posted by Paul Rhodes on 18/08/2022 02:39:13:

Hopper ,

You are cherry picking again.

I did not quote Doran and Zimmerman. I pointed to the larger survey that points to Doran and Zimmerman amongst thousands of others including, from my post "Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming."

Anyhow there is no point in arguing with me, just some guy on an internet forum, about it. Go argue with the scientists and the world's leading scientific bodies. They are the ones who say manmade global warming is a problem. I am just pointing you to what the experts in the field say, the established scientific knowledge.

As a famous man once said, When I point my finger at the moon, do not mistake my finger for the moon.

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 04:58:21

Hopper,

Not sure where my first cherry picking was,far less my second offence. I merely pointed out that the very first straw of evidence you offered was to put it mildly ,not robust. Indeed an objective observer might wonder if the boot fits….

I have taken no position on the subject. I am neither a zealot nor an atheist ,more on the agnostic side. To continue the theological theme wrt the paper you evidenced, asking 79 climate experts if man made climate change is real is like enquiring of Jesuit priests ,the existence of a divine being.

I do however agree with your own assessment of the utility of contributing further to this thread.

Now where did I put my tin foil hat…..?

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Paul Rhodes on 18/08/2022 09:30:21:

Posted by Hopper on 18/08/2022 04:22:08:

Posted by Paul Rhodes on 18/08/2022 02:39:13:

Hopper ,

 

 

You are cherry picking again.

I did not quote Doran and Zimmerman. I pointed to the larger survey that points to Doran and Zimmerman amongst thousands of others including, from my post "Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming."

 

Anyhow there is no point in arguing with me, just some guy on an internet forum, about it. Go argue with the scientists and the world's leading scientific bodies. They are the ones who say manmade global warming is a problem. I am just pointing you to what the experts in the field say, the established scientific knowledge.

As a famous man once said, When I point my finger at the moon, do not mistake my finger for the moon.

 

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 04:58:21

Hopper,

Not sure where my first cherry picking was,far less my second offence. I merely pointed out that the very first straw of evidence you offered was to put it mildly ,not robust. Indeed an objective observer might wonder if the boot fits….

I have taken no position on the subject. I am neither a zealot nor an atheist ,more on the agnostic side. To continue the theological theme wrt the paper you evidenced, asking 79 climate experts if man made climate change is real is like enquiring of Jesuit priests ,the existence of a divine being.

I do however agree with your own assessment of the utility of contributing further to this thread.

Now where did I put my tin foil hat…..?

 

NASA accepts the 97 per cent scientific consensus that manmade global warming is a problem HERE

If you know more about climate change than the scientists at NASA, you should write up your scientific research in a scientific paper and submit it for publication in one of the scientific journals. If your science is robust and exposes bonafide flaws in current science and in NASA's thinking, it will get published, and you could change the course of history.

The most prestigious journal to submit your research to would be Nature. It's submission guidelines are HERE As you can see, submissions of scientific articles are open to anyone.

 

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 09:50:37

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 09:57:19

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

I thought "quantum" meant very small

So when a politician says "there will be a quantum change in our manifesto"….

You can manipulate statistics to support any evidence you want it to – politicians do it all the time

Statistics = maths for politicians

Just because Piers Corbyn "has got a degree in maths, physics and bionics" (thanks to the Undertones for that one!) does not mean that he is right

I agree with Hopper and others that over 7 billion humans beings (and increasing) are doing something bad to our planet and it will not end well…

Regards to all

Derek

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

double post

Edited By derek hall 1 on 18/08/2022 10:01:23

[Author]

Posts