China is the biggest polluter because they have the largest population; per capita they're number 7 and they are still developing so a greater portion of the per capita use is due to necessity vs luxury AND China has also builds more renewable energy sourced plants than the US and Europe combined. Also, most of the signatories of that list weren't climate scientists themselves [http://www. realclimate. org/index. php/archives/2019/10/more-than-500-people-misunderstand-climate-change/]. And might I ask which scientist was caught with fraudulent research?
The point I'm making is that the issue is not black and white. Not by a long-shot. The source you provide is a random private Webb which ordains itself to be genuine, but loads of conflicting sources always do. Your source's rather prominent bias furthermore makes it hard for me to take it serious. "It is also typical that there are a few stubborn people who think they know better than the rest." This excerpt alone does not ring with professionalism and objective standpoints. So forgive me but I do not believe your source. I can likewise point to numerous sources of the scientists being too, experts in climate. www.aei.org/.../ www.energycentral.com/.../500-climate-scientists-write-un-there-no-climate-emergency and the fact remains that outside this particular event, varying quantities of scientists have always been opposed to the notion of a climate crisis. As for China. What does it matter if they're the biggest polluter due to population? You act as if that somehow negates or mitigates the fact. It doesn't. They still are! Yet they escape all critique. And it is all well and good if China is developing new energy sources, but their overseas outsourcing tell another tale. Climate is an issue I'm on the fence with. I do not believe it is something either of us two here at GAG can discern and dissect for truth and know for certain, not given how enormously politicized it is and how complex and broad the research is. I'd just rather not handle the question in the spirit of populist hysteria, as is such with Thunberg. I did not find the source considering the researcher however, and will concede it might have been fake news. I remember reading it in an article somewhere on FB, considering that the researcher was one Thunberg referred to, but I don't know.
www.aei.org/.../ Sorry, a source slipped from the first answer.
They also included info on how small the portion of scientists who signed off on that letter is compared to the total number of scientists and how few of the signatories were actual climate scientists so the quote "It is also typical that there are a few stubborn people who think they know better than the rest." was just icing on the cake. The link you posted just brought up the fact that people signed a letter while the one I posted dissected the claims. If you want to write it off and claim that the issue isn't as black and white as is portrayed, refute the claims made by the link I've posted. If a country has a larger population, it's going to pollute more and we should hold countries to a per capita carbon emission footprint. Otherwise we'd expect Luxembourg and Germany to pollute as much despite Germany having 138 times as many people.
Also, I study ecology and geology so I think this is an issue that I could discuss (here on G@G or elsewhere) with you.
I have understood that you give complete faith to the site uncritically since it speaks in favor of your beliefs. But fact remains, your source appears by all regards to be that of an amateur written, biased and with a clear agenda. They do indeed make a case, but they present little actual sources to the veracity of their dissection. Yes, there are graphs and statistics, but as I'm trying to say, multitudes of sources say conflicting things. I will link another such source contrary to your stance. [http://www. realclimate. org/index. php/archives/2019/10/more-than-500-people-misunderstand-climate-change/].This is how I prove that the issue is not black and white. And in all seriousness, you can't expect a singular private Webb dedicated to decrying critique against climate change to be some undeniable evidence that beyond all doubt settles the issue. A larger population does yield a responsibility in omission as well though in all logic. And while I will not argue that countries like the US exceeds China in areas such as omission per capita, my intial concern was that countries like China escape the ire of climatists completely.
And I study political Science. So I am well aware of how polarized and politicised this issue is and always have been.
wattsupwiththat.com/.../ The wrong source came in my first reply for some reason, this is the one I was talking about.
Well, I don't know how one sided an issue has to be for you to consider it not to be black and white. In biology, we usually have to be >95% certain to reject the null hypothesis and amongst the peer review literature, there is a greater consensus than that [https://journals. sagepub. com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079? journalCode=bsta]. But by citing petitions, websites and letters like the ones you posted you could argue that the science isn't settled on the evolution vs creation debate (it is).
No, the debate on evolution vs creation is not settled There alone you reveal a bias and frankly, arrogance, that makes any discourse useless.
No, that only reveals that I'm biased by reality.
But that statement DID show how little you understand about scientific research (and that's not being arrogant; that's just the way it is).
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I agree that she didn’t deserve the Nobel. But global warming is happening. You’re idiot to think otherwise.
First off, you're a troll odd whatever. Second, where is the proof of "climate change"? I debated a guy earlier who is much smarter than you & he lost. Wheres the proof? I want facts, otherwise piss off back to your sock.
@cincisteve72 Well for starters the recent warming trend is correlated with the recent rise in CO2 and the pattern of thermal stratification of the atmosphere is consistent with a greenhouse effect.
@cincisteve72 I’m guessing you get all your info from Trump. Or you don’t know how google works. For starters I’ll send you to NASA’s website. Pretty good graph on the front page so you don’t have read as much :)https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
No, I get my info from NOAA & scientific data. Not a single thing you mentioned proves climate change. Nice try, but wrong again. Where are the stats & proof of "climate change".
@cincisteve72 There's a graph using NOAA data on this site that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.skepticalscience.com/...n-CO2-and-temperature.html
That is not proof of climate change. Proof is showing concrete evidence of damage to the environment & species. First over 30 years I e heard this b. s. ice caps haven't melted, more ice now than 50 years ago. Islands haven't sunk, polar bears aren't extinct, no cities flooded. All that was predicted has not come true. There is no proof of climate change. There is more evidence of aliens than of climate change
@cincisteve72 What scientific studies made the predictions you stated?
@cincisteve72 Also, while still present, Antarctic sea ice has been shrinking.[https://earthobservatory. nasa. gov/features/SeaIce/page3. php]
None worth a shit. Since the 80s they have said the climate is changing. First it was a new ice age, then it was global warming now it's just climate change. Every prediction has been wrong. Al gore made billions saying the ice caps would be gone by 2012 & Florida sould be underwater. Climate change is a hoax making billions for governments. It's a hoax for governments to take more power & control of the globe.
Antarctica isn't shrinking, it's been growing. One side has melted but the other has been growing. Procession is the cause. Study the planets & you will understand.
@cincisteve72 Well, the current warming trend began in the 1970s and has continued to this day but you didn't answer my questions: what scientific publications made the predictions you're talking about?
I remember Time magazine & al gore's movie "the inconvenient truth" making most of the predictions. Along with scientists from england who falsified their data in order to get more research mo et. That was a fairy large scandal in the 90s.
@cincisteve72 The ice SHEET on Antarctica had been melting since the 1970s. The input of cold melt water into the Southern Ocean cancelled out the effect of warm water coming in from the north and the input of the fresh meltwater rose the freezing temperature causing the ice SHELF to grow. The Axial tilt has been the main driver of ice ages (the procession has mostly caused differences in severity between the Northern and Southern hemispheres) and these go on a 41,000 year cycle, the current warming trend has been less than a century.
@cincisteve72 Those aren't scientific studies.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugwqXKHLrGk&t=476s
Then why is there more ice there now than 50 years ago? Dont know where you get your facts, but the south pole has grown in size the last 10 years
I'm not going to change your mind & you won't change mine. I'm drunk, tired & done. You go climate hero, fight for lies.
@cincisteve72 The continent is losing icewww.science.org.au/.../how-antarctic-melt-contributing-global-sea-levelAnd the input of the fresh meltwater decreases the salinity of the southern ocean and raises the freezing temperature which is why the sea ice is expanding.
By the way, those stats were basically just water currents & prove nothing, much like the predictions I heard 30 years ago. Its conjecture, you haven't proven anything. I dont have to prove anything because I dont think it's real & you have nothing saying it is. Keep trying, maybe you might find an alien who will tell you what you want to hear. May the alien be legal
Same thing you already posted. One side is melting, the other growing ice. You haven't proven anything. Again, show proof of climate change, not currents or partial ice melt
@cincisteve72 Wrong, they showed that contrary to your claims, the ice on Antarctica has been melting.
It also showed that while some parts were growing and others were shrinking, overall, the total ice is decreasing.
The ice caps still have as much ice pr more than they did 50 years ago.
@cincisteve72 That's because meltwater from the continent increased the freezing point. The Southern Ocean is still getting warmer.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
It’s cute watching the sane Ad_Quid go up against the insane Cincisteve. My advice: stop arguing with stupid people. We gave him the sources. It’s on him to not be dumb. I’m not holding out hope tho.
And your evidence for this is...
Sounds like you have a hobby of harassing little girls
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!