No, I rely on peer reviewed science

This time I'll paraphrase Goebbels and modernize...

I guess that's the difference between peer reviewed science & a minister for propaganda

Peer reviewed science = 2 people who 'agree'

You're a mile off understanding how peer review works

Distilled down that's essentially what is amounts to.
These are your priests.

Look mate, there are just too many people involved for there to be any conspiracy (mass propaganda) going on. There are tens/hundreds of thousands of scientists working all over the world - in a time where communication and the propagation of ideas is the greatest its ever been. It's not like a small group/organisation is able to control the dissemination of ideas like in the past - if that were the case now we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Look I love a quote as much as the next person, but using quotes to argue against scientific evidence on a science subject is pointless.

Also a peer reviewed paper / science means that it can be critiqued by anyone with the know to understand the science / statistical analysis etc. behind that paper. Scientific papers work as a "discussion" between scientists. A scientists publishes X, then another scientists publishes Y to argue X.

The issue is that many scientific papers don't explicitly deal with climate change, but instead studies into other subjects provide evidence for climatic change. If I remember correctly in the previous IPCC report a study from frog habitats highlighted a change in climate, as the species was highly reliant on a specific climate. The study didn't imply global warming or anything of the like, but the study was used to further supported evidence of climate change. This is how science works. A collection of evidence (that doesn't necessarily research climate change / global warming) is used to support conclusions and the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming.

So no "distilled down" it is not essential 2 people who 'agree'. It is the majority of scientists across a wide range of scientific fields.

...unless you are a troll in which case the point is something different.

Edited by canonical: 27/5/2016 11:18:27 AM

So having a differing opinion makes one a troll. I see the problem with this forum now.

I think the point being made was arguing scientific evidence by quoting Goebbels is redundant. I see the thin link you are trying to establish but I think we've move passed straw man arguments.

I admire Nazis as much as the next tosser so I would love to know your opinion if you have one?

There is no scientific evidence for this theory.

Excellent!!:cool: :cool: :cool:

In South East QLD they've virtually run out of land so most flood prone zones are already full of houses :shock:

Do you understand what a scientific theory is and how they are reached??

Dont insult me laddy.

Well then you knowingly lied to us in your previous post then:

"There is no scientific evidence for this theory"

Because you obviously know that a scientific theory is based on the accumulation of scientific evidence.

Edited by sokorny: 30/5/2016 02:52:04 PM

Where did I say it was a scientific theory?

Thanks for playing.

Since Conservative joined he has shown his interest in Nazis. Also he gets backed up a bit by mvfc11.

These are solid points that make me think he knows what he is talking about.

So I can't wait for him to make a post that has something to do with climate science.

watch out.......

How much do underwater volcanos contribute ?

They are called submarine volcanos and there doesn't seem to be any clear answer to your question (as measuring them is difficult).

http://www.minsocam.org/msa/rim/RiMG075/RiMG075_Ch11.pdf

It also isn't so much the "contribution" but an imbalance in the carbon cycle that is the issue in regards to global warming. "While atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied between 190-280 ppm for the last 400,000 years (Zeebe and Caldeira 2008), human activity has produced a remarkable increase in CO2 abundance, particularly in the last 100 years, with concentrations reaching ~390 ppmv at the time of writing" (from the above study)

Therein lies the concern. The CO2 concentrations have increased dramatically recently (geologically) and as yet no natural variable is known to have caused such a dramatic increase in these concentrations. Could submarine volcanos be the answer considering how little we know about their emissions?? Not sure how well they can look at the history of submarine emissions either ...

Edited by sokorny: 31/5/2016 06:13:21 PM

How many people have died due to anthropogenic climate change?

back for more ricey?

Nobody can provide an answer only cryptic responses I see.

Really depends on how you look at it. In Europe 2003 there were over 70,000 deaths due to a heat wave ... did anthropogenic global warming exacerbate the heat wave??

103 died in the 2015 Myanmar floods ... did anthropogenic global warming exacerbate the rainfall / flooding?

The Black Saturday fires in Victoria 2009 killed 173 ... did anthropogenic global warming exacerbate the conditions for the fire? (Considering bushfire management, control, operations, housing regulations, public awareness, communication, transport etc. have all increased since the early 1980s and before when the last major fires occurred suggests that perhaps climatic conditions were a significant factor).

Here is link to health risks associated with climate change http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

This DARA International study links approximately 400,000 deaths worldwide to climate change each year http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/report/

I'd argue that the problem with such a study is determining how many can be directly attributed to climate change and how many would have occurred without anthropogenic global warming. The projected risks (and increased fatalities) is probably a more concerning issue for policy makers (imagine if policy makers said an extra 200,000 deaths each year by 2030 would occur from terrorism ... we wouldn't leave our homes, but because it is linked to climate change and largely to affect developing nations we are "dismissive" of it).

You really have to admire the dedication to all this shitposting.

-PB

He's an incurable cancer.

So in other words, you can attribute any number you make up of deaths related to weather events and blame that on "anthropogenic global warming".

Edited by Conservative: 1/6/2016 12:50:03 PM

The main risks of climate change are that we will have more extreme weather events, i.e. longer and hotter heat waves, droughts, floods, more severe cold fronts, more severe cold weather, more intense tornadoes / cylcones (and/or greater frequency of higher grade storms) etc. etc.

Furthermore these won't just be "storm of the centuries", they will become more the "norm" than the extremes each year. Hence a change in climate (long term weather patterns), and therefore "climate change".

Generally deaths directly related to anthropogenic global warming are hard to ascertain because of being able to distinguish isolated events to a long-term change is difficult. Instead you'd have to look at patterns and long-term changes to determine the impact of AGW. Then you run into the issue of other changes over time that may also affect deaths ... e.g. population density, technology, communication, infrastructure etc.

That is where the major risks from climate change are also going to be felt, more so than deaths per se. Policy makers will need to ensure that their infrastructure, technology, communication, services etc. are all "future proofed" for climate changes (e.g. in Perth there already are concerns with blackouts during heat waves, so is the electricity company set up to, or have plans to, deal with even longer and hotter heat waves in the future? Lots of Perth relies on groundwater aquifers for water, what happens when sea levels rise and salt water encroaches further into aquifers ... there is also reduced rainfall and higher temperatures, so dams are less sustainable, are they future proofing Perth's water supplies?)