Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,992
3,083
Hmmm, I kind of agree but what does NASA have to do with it? We all know that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept anthropogenic climate change but NASA is defined as follows:
NASA is defined as an acronym for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the federal agency that is responsible for aerospace research, aeronautics, and the civilian space program.

It looks kind of kooky putting that organization up as the authority on global weather! I'm not saying they aren't interested in or aren't affected by the climate and weather but they're not an authority.

NASA is the lead agency for Earth Science research in the US through it’s Science Mission Directorate, so yeah, it definitely is an authority on the subject.
 

Ffs...

NYC Player
130
106
Hmmm, I kind of agree but what does NASA have to do with it? We all know that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept anthropogenic climate change but NASA is defined as follows:
NASA is defined as an acronym for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the federal agency that is responsible for aerospace research, aeronautics, and the civilian space program.

It looks kind of kooky putting that organization up as the authority on global weather! I'm not saying they aren't interested in or aren't affected by the climate and weather but they're not an authority.
I'm not citing it as an authority. I'm not a scientist. My point is leave science to the scientists, not internet bogans and conspiracy theory nuts who often quote NASA.
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
8,700
5,653
Ipswich

NASA is the lead agency for Earth Science research in the US through it’s Science Mission Directorate, so yeah, it definitely is an authority on the subject.
The US is ONE country amongst one hundred and ninety five!!
Global climate change is just that, global. NASA most certainly does not speak for the scientific community and isn't the governing body nor does it pretend to be. You seem to have missed the point and that was the claim 'that 97% of scientists support anthropogenic climate change according to NASA'.

I was just pointing out that NASA has never made that claim. It's primary goal is space exploration etc and just because it has a division that has a subdivision which deals with global climate etc does not make them a global authority. Naturally they employ highly qualified and trained staff but they don't do commentary on the numbers of scientists who support various hypotheses!!
 

lynx000

NRL Captain
3,921
3,450
Waiting to win lotto
The US is ONE country amongst one hundred and ninety five!!
Global climate change is just that, global. NASA most certainly does not speak for the scientific community and isn't the governing body nor does it pretend to be. You seem to have missed the point and that was the claim 'that 97% of scientists support anthropogenic climate change according to NASA'.

I was just pointing out that NASA has never made that claim. It's primary goal is space exploration etc and just because it has a division that has a subdivision which deals with global climate etc does not make them a global authority. Naturally they employ highly qualified and trained staff but they don't do commentary on the numbers of scientists who support various hypotheses!!
Unusual for you not to have done proper research:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Apparently NASA does do commentary on the number of scientists that support the hypothesis.

They actually repeat the claim here:
Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Click here for a partial list of these public statements and related resources.

Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


Re the role of NASA -

NASA Climate Change
Organization
NASA Climate Change
Rocket science isn't enough; we're climate scientists, too. Find us at http://climate.nasa.gov. RTs, links & follows are not endorsements.

Was that sufficient evidence for you?
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
8,700
5,653
Ipswich
Unusual for you not to have done proper research:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Apparently NASA does do commentary on the number of scientists that support the hypothesis.

They actually repeat the claim here:
Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Click here for a partial list of these public statements and related resources.

Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


Re the role of NASA -

NASA Climate Change
Organization
NASA Climate Change
Rocket science isn't enough; we're climate scientists, too. Find us at http://climate.nasa.gov. RTs, links & follows are not endorsements.

Was that sufficient evidence for you?
Okey dokey, looks good at first glance and it looks like I'm wrong about how involved NASA is but I'm skeptical that NASA is the peak body on climate. Let me do some research but should I find I'm wrong I will own it wholeheartedly.
 

lynx000

NRL Captain
3,921
3,450
Waiting to win lotto
Okey dokey, looks good at first glance and it looks like I'm wrong about how involved NASA is but I'm skeptical that NASA is the peak body on climate. Let me do some research but should I find I'm wrong I will own it wholeheartedly.
PS, I am not suggesting they are the peak body on climate, but they are involved in climate research.
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
8,700
5,653
Ipswich
Unusual for you not to have done proper research:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Apparently NASA does do commentary on the number of scientists that support the hypothesis.

They actually repeat the claim here:
Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Click here for a partial list of these public statements and related resources.

Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


Re the role of NASA -

NASA Climate Change
Organization
NASA Climate Change
Rocket science isn't enough; we're climate scientists, too. Find us at http://climate.nasa.gov. RTs, links & follows are not endorsements.

Was that sufficient evidence for you?
You're absolutely correct and I was wrong about NASA commenting on the number of scientists, they have made that observation. In truth they are only repeating the claim and NASA itself does have experts studying the climate. It's not a big part of their budget, in fact quite small compared to the greater budget but still, they are involved.

As NASA state there are almost 200 scientific organizations worldwide that have issued statements on the fact of anthropogenic climate change and about 18 are american but a few of them are hardly involved(the American Medical Association!!)
I was totally wrong about NASA and it's commentary and I will have to do better research in future. Every day is a school day.
 

lynx000

NRL Captain
3,921
3,450
Waiting to win lotto
You're absolutely correct and I was wrong about NASA commenting on the number of scientists, they have made that observation. In truth they are only repeating the claim and NASA itself does have experts studying the climate. It's not a big part of their budget, in fact quite small compared to the greater budget but still, they are involved.

As NASA state there are almost 200 scientific organizations worldwide that have issued statements on the fact of anthropogenic climate change and about 18 are american but a few of them are hardly involved(the American Medical Association!!)
I was totally wrong about NASA and it's commentary and I will have to do better research in future. Every day is a school day.
PS, our thoughts about the topic are largely fairly similar, I am very pessimistic about anything meaningful being done to address the issue.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,992
3,083
The US is ONE country amongst one hundred and ninety five!!
Global climate change is just that, global. NASA most certainly does not speak for the scientific community and isn't the governing body nor does it pretend to be. You seem to have missed the point and that was the claim 'that 97% of scientists support anthropogenic climate change according to NASA'.

I was just pointing out that NASA has never made that claim. It's primary goal is space exploration etc and just because it has a division that has a subdivision which deals with global climate etc does not make them a global authority. Naturally they employ highly qualified and trained staff but they don't do commentary on the numbers of scientists who support various hypotheses!!
Been sorted I know, but FYI, I never actually said any of that. I said it was ‘an authority’ not ’the’ authority...

It is ‘an authority’ because it has been formally given lead agency status on climate research within the US.

That is all...
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
25,952
10,381
Third Rock from the Sun
There is a pretty clear scientific consensus on anthropogenic Climate Change. Anyone denying it just looks silly.

The degree of anthropogenic influence is however, anything but settled, as is the science predicting climate change's consequences and their timeline. They can't even agree whether there is a tipping point, much less when. The most common hypothesis is that said tipping point would probably occur when the accumulated carbon dioxide stored in the planet's oceans starts to release at a "self-sustaining rate". A cataclysmic super volcano eruption could also do this, but this wouldn't be an anthropogenically driven phenomenon.

This is the point where I agree with Jason Simmons Jason Simmons , as every single prediction model (be it optimistic, pessimistic or apocalyptic) fails a scientific method step at some point. Worse yet, most don't get past the construction of an hypothesis!

As most people said, we aren't doing enough though. We should all as individuals try to do our bit, but it is governments that have to embrace the new technologies, cleaner energy, reforestation, and divert funding from wasteful money pits (military, fossil fuels, politics, etc...) towards their R&D.
It would be wonderful if Huge Huge 's idea of re-purposing military funds came true, at least to a degree, but I can't see it happening until there is a global agreement on the matter, and let's be realistic, that is as probable as hen growing teeth in the current political climate, with its trend to shy away from globalization and gaining emphasis on nationalism.
 
Last edited:

kooly87

NRL Player
1,751
2,714
There is a pretty clear scientific consensus on anthropogenic Climate Change. Anyone denying it just looks silly.

The degree of anthropogenic influence is however, anything but settled, as is the science predicting climate change's consequences and their timeline. They can't even agree whether there is a tipping point, much less when. The most common hypothesis is that said tipping point would probably occur when the accumulated carbon dioxide stored in the planet's oceans starts to release at a "self-sustaining rate". A cataclysmic super volcano eruption could also do this, but this wouldn't be an anthropogenically driven phenomenon.

This is the point where I agree with Jason Simmons Jason Simmons , as every single prediction model (be it optimistic, pessimistic or apocalyptic) fails a scientific method step at some point. Worse yet, most don't get past the construction of an hypothesis!

As most people said, we aren't doing enough though. We should all as individuals try to do our bit, but it is governments that have to embrace the new technologies, cleaner energy, reforestation, and divert funding from wasteful money pits (military, fossil fuels, politics, etc...) towards their R&D.
It would be wonderful if Huge Huge 's idea of re-purposing military funds came true, at least to a degree, but I can't see it happening until there is a global agreement on the matter, and let's be realistic, that is as probable as hen growing teeth in the current political climate, with its trend to shy away from globalization and gaining emphasis on nationalism.
Sadly, I think we're looking at military spending only really increasing, at least in the short to medium term. So many possible escalation points around the globe for a major conflict and basically all of them appear to be escalating right now.
 
Last edited:

Huge

State of Origin Captain
8,700
5,653
Ipswich
Sadly, I think we're looking at military spending only really increasing, at least in the short to medium term. So many possible escalation points around the globe for a major conflict and basically all of them appear to be escalating right now.
I never really thought the money spent on the armed forces worldwide would be spent on more noble pursuits. That was just a 'were I king of the world' desire I'm sure I'd have. It will never happen because the world is sadly more like Morkels gloomy view of it. On another note, blokes I know are still putting posts on Facebook praising that science denier Andrew Bolt. He influences so many of the gullible. BoltStillADickhead.png BoltStillADickhead.png
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,424
1,107
Bundy
The vitriol in this thread is, sadly, unsurprising - and all too common. Why do all people who question anything about 'climate change' have to be right-wing hacks who know nothing about "the science"? Why are people who disagree with your views denigrated for their opinions and viewpoints? It frustrates the hell out of me that something which should be scientific, has become so political...but it's been that way for a long, long time now and unfortunately is only getting more polarised as time goes on. If we are unable to even listen and consider the points other people are making, and have a civilised discussion about it...then we're in a bad place.

I've considered sharing my views and my 'story' on how I got to here. But I'd rather not be subjected to offensive slurs, and I refuse to have a discussion with people who are too closed minded that they're not even willing to accept evidence that doesn't fit their worldview. I've done enough of that over the years, I no longer waste my time...which is sad, because there should always be a place for considered, intelligent discussion. Our Western society literally depends on it.
 

Sirlee oldman

NRL Player
1,434
1,881
The vitriol in this thread is, sadly, unsurprising - and all too common. Why do all people who question anything about 'climate change' have to be right-wing hacks who know nothing about "the science"? Why are people who disagree with your views denigrated for their opinions and viewpoints? It frustrates the hell out of me that something which should be scientific, has become so political...but it's been that way for a long, long time now and unfortunately is only getting more polarised as time goes on. If we are unable to even listen and consider the points other people are making, and have a civilised discussion about it...then we're in a bad place.

I've considered sharing my views and my 'story' on how I got to here. But I'd rather not be subjected to offensive slurs, and I refuse to have a discussion with people who are too closed minded that they're not even willing to accept evidence that doesn't fit their worldview. I've done enough of that over the years, I no longer waste my time...which is sad, because there should always be a place for considered, intelligent discussion. Our Western society literally depends on it.
So our society depends on discussion but you aren’t willing to get involved in one. Thanks for your contribution.
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
8,700
5,653
Ipswich
The vitriol in this thread is, sadly, unsurprising - and all too common. Why do all people who question anything about 'climate change' have to be right-wing hacks who know nothing about "the science"? Why are people who disagree with your views denigrated for their opinions and viewpoints? It frustrates the hell out of me that something which should be scientific, has become so political...but it's been that way for a long, long time now and unfortunately is only getting more polarised as time goes on. If we are unable to even listen and consider the points other people are making, and have a civilised discussion about it...then we're in a bad place.

I've considered sharing my views and my 'story' on how I got to here. But I'd rather not be subjected to offensive slurs, and I refuse to have a discussion with people who are too closed minded that they're not even willing to accept evidence that doesn't fit their worldview. I've done enough of that over the years, I no longer waste my time...which is sad, because there should always be a place for considered, intelligent discussion. Our Western society literally depends on it.
Vitriol? Hyperbole much !
If you present evidence as opposed to opinion your contribution would be welcome. It's unsurprising baseless and unsubstantiated claims are subject to ridicule, in fact it's appropriate. We won't accept opinions as evidence, it must be peer reviewed evidence. Conjecture about the climate is fine but conjecture is not fact. There are a couple of people with solid qualifications claiming there's nothing to see but after careful examination their conclusions have been proven to be factually flawed.

I have an open mind concerning contrary evidence however when evaluating that evidence I demand it meets the highest standard. A contrary view is not evidence and any claims that you want considered must be supported by evidence. As Hitchens said "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,424
1,107
Bundy
Ha, righto. I'll play until I get abused...

I'm not a scientist, but I am an engineer - so I do know a thing or two about maths/stats/academicia/etc. I can generally follow most scientific papers, and love reading - even if its dry! Research is my thing...I tend to get mindly obsessed with a certain topic and research the hell out of it until I feel I've learned everything I care to. I believe in knowing a little about a lot of things. I know how stats can be tortured to give an inaccurate picture and I believe I have a pretty good BS filter.

In the mid-2000's, a work colleague introduced me to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". I was horrified - and immediately began researching everything I could find. Especially diving into the nuts and bolts of things, rather than relying on the media which I had already grown to distrust by that stage. It wasn't long before I started finding all kinds of flaws - inaccuracies, exaggerations, circular reasoning, throwing out data which didn't match the theory, the lack of an ability to replicate which is literally at the heart of science. I was stunned - why was this science not held to the same standards as I'd been taught in my engineering training?

Long story short, the more I researched, the more I grew to doubt that we could even tell if anything catastrophic was actually happening...and nothing I have seen since has convinced me otherwise. I have spent thousands of hours going through scientific journal papers, reports, studies, supplementary material. I have downloaded hundreds of GB of data and run my own studies and stats and checks. I'm not saying all the science is bad, by any stretch, but there is a significant proportion that barely stands up at best. This is true for many branches of science, by the way, not just climate science...health/medicine is actually another particularly bad one too.

Before we continue the conversation I think it's very important to have confirmed definitions for the various terms in use - because they all mean something different to different people. Huge Huge - would you like to provide your definition of "climate change" for me, so we're sure that we're talking about the same thing?
Post automatically merged:

Vitriol? Hyperbole much !
If you present evidence as opposed to opinion your contribution would be welcome. It's unsurprising baseless and unsubstantiated claims are subject to ridicule, in fact it's appropriate. We won't accept opinions as evidence, it must be peer reviewed evidence. Conjecture about the climate is fine but conjecture is not fact. There are a couple of people with solid qualifications claiming there's nothing to see but after careful examination their conclusions have been proven to be factually flawed.

I have an open mind concerning contrary evidence however when evaluating that evidence I demand it meets the highest standard. A contrary view is not evidence and any claims that you want considered must be supported by evidence. As Hitchens said "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
I also hope you evaluate evidence that supports your view with the same rigour? It's natural to have bias; we're only human after all, and that's exactly what the scientific method is supposed to help remove - our own fallibility! But that only works if done right.

I believe "climate change" is too broad a topic to just say "yes" or "no" to, btw. There are so many facets and components and moving parts... Each area/topic needs to be considered on its own before trying to form a bigger picture.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top