Bee lives matter or global warming

If both are true which is the greatest threat right now?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If both are true which is the greatest threat right now?

global warming.
bee hives matter but the bee decline has so far had very little effect on our overall food production and there is some VERY good reasons (which I will be happy to list here on request; for you or anyone else who is interested), despite the scares made from some, to believe that the bee decline will continue to have very little effect on our overall food production for the foreseeable future.
In contrast, we are already starting to feel the effects of global warming and we can confidently predict it will get far worse.

Originally posted by humy
global warming.
bee hives matter but the bee decline has so far had very little effect on our overall food production and there is some VERY good reasons (which I will be happy to list here on request; for you or anyone else who is interested), despite the scares made from some, to believe that the bee decline will continue to have very little effect on our ov ...[text shortened]... ting to feel the effects of global warming and we can confidently predict it will get far worse.

Thank you

Originally posted by KellyJay
If both are true which is the greatest threat right now?

Both are undeniably true. Bees have lives and the globe is warming. That bees are in decline is also undeniably true. That they will go extinct is extremely unlikely. That their decline will have a significant economic impact is possible, but in my opinion not probable. Global warming on the other hand has already cost billions and will continue to do so.


http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/sustainable-agriculture/save-the-bees/

“In the last four years, the chemical industry has spent $11.2 million on a PR initiative to say it’s not their fault, so we know whose fault it is.”
Jon Cooksey, writer, director, How to Boil a Frog.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If both are true which is the greatest threat right now?

Both are true, but global warming is primarily natural and nothing can be done about it. Those that claim man is the primary cause and climate scientists agree on it are liars. No poll of climate scientists has shown man is the primary cause and none of the wacky climate alarmists will do a poll like that and show the results. They should, but they will not. They are terrified of the true results.

Bees.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Both are true, but global warming is primarily natural and nothing can be done about it. Those that claim man is the primary cause and climate scientists agree on it are liars. No poll of climate scientists has shown man is the primary cause and none of the wacky climate alarmists will do a poll like that and show the results. They should, but they will not. They are terrified of the true results.

Bees.

Didn't I point out several polls of climate scientists the last time you brought this up?

Pretty sure I did.

KellyJay

Just so to make sure you don't fall victim to Metal Brain's usual lies, here is what the consensus is among the vast majority of experts that are in a far more authoritative position than you and I to judge the true causes of global warming;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

"...Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists.
...
That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.
...
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
..."




In addition, and this is a point often missed my many, there is good evidence that much of the cooling of the stratosphere is caused by the man made CFCs (which, incidentally, is further evidence, if any were needed, that man can effect climate). However, no-where near all of it can be explained by CFCs and the remaining cooling can only be explained by CO2.

Here is what science has to say;

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what-is-the-evidence-that-co2/
"...Just to pile on, here are some rather key specific observations beyond the rise in seasonally averaged global temperature that fit in well with an enhanced greenhouse effect (the relevant effect of increasing CO2 concentrations). These observations do not fit with other potential forcings.

Temperatures have risen more at night than during the day. This really defeats the notion of a solar powered climate change on its face.
The stratosphere is cooling. Models that predict the warming we are seeing also predict this particular feature of the current climate change.
An increasingly enhanced greenhouse effect should cause an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected.

So to summarize: we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause, the CO2 rise is unquestionably the result of our activities, the particulars of the warming signature are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect and the whole phenomenon is entirely consistent with very long standing theories and expectations.

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, why on earth would you think it is a galactic cosmic ray?..."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
"...
here is other evidence of warming: :
...
Satellite measurements show that the troposphere is warming
The stratosphere is cooling as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory (this cannot be explained by solar variability)
..."


Other causes cannot explain the amount of cooling in the stratosphere relative to the troposphere; ONLY the increase in CO2 explains it. Therefore, CO2 increase is the cause therefore man is the cause. And this is not even to mention that other causes cannot explain the amount of warning recently occurred in the biosphere as a whole including the oceans; only the increase in CO2 can explain it therefore man must be the cause.

Originally posted by humy
The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists.

Not true. The vast majority of people get their information from tv. Where tv is biased, such as in the US, you will find peoples opinions tend to be biased too.
Note how in the US many people think that global warming and the internet were invented by Al Gore.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not true. The vast majority of people get their information from tv. Where tv is biased, such as in the US, you will find peoples opinions tend to be biased too.
Note how in the US many people think that global warming and the internet were invented by Al Gore.

That was a misedit so I agree with you.
I meant to type in the word "refer", not "defer".
Actually, just noticed I made that same edit mistake not once but twice there.

Originally posted by humy
KellyJay

Just so to make sure you don't fall victim to Metal Brain's usual lies, here is what the consensus is among the vast majority of experts that are in a far more authoritative position than you and I to judge the true causes of global warming;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

"...Authors of ...[text shortened]... e including the oceans; only the increase in CO2 can explain it therefore man must be the cause.

misedit;
The two "defer"s should be "refer"s thus that should have read the exact opposite of what I was trying to say which was;

"Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently refer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people refer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. "

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Didn't I point out several polls of climate scientists the last time you brought this up?

Pretty sure I did.

You pointed to a poll showing man is a factor, not the primary factor. The other poll you pointed to using the words "primary factor" was not of climate scientists, but mere weathermen and other non-climate scientists.

Can't you remember that? After all, it was a huge embarrassment to you. You proved nothing.

Originally posted by humy
KellyJay

Just so to make sure you don't fall victim to Metal Brain's usual lies, here is what the consensus is among the vast majority of experts that are in a far more authoritative position than you and I to judge the true causes of global warming;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

"...Authors of ...[text shortened]... e including the oceans; only the increase in CO2 can explain it therefore man must be the cause.

You are the liar, yet again you resort to psychological projection and call me the liar in yet another pathetic lie. No poll has been done to show climate scientists believe man is the primary cause. You believe only what you want to believe while being ignorant to the facts that I have shown you many times. It is sad you do not want to be confused with facts.

Your so called consensus is not a poll at all. It is merely a biased interpretation of climate scientist's conclusions which have been condemned by some of those very climate scientists because they did not agree with at all.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#16f28cb926d6

Read it this time!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No poll has been done to show climate scientists believe man is the primary cause.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
"...Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.
Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures "
etc.
etc.
You are fooling nobody here no matter how you try and warp what is said.

Originally posted by humy
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
"...Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.
Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures "
etc.
etc.
You are fooling nobody here no matter how you try and warp what is said.

You are a pathetic liar!

Your link refers to the consensus project. The consensus project is peddling lies and you were stupid enough to believe it despite no source of information being provided by the pathetic lies of the consensus project. We have been over this before. The consensus project is a pathetic joke as I have told you before.

Show your source of information, not a link that does not show a source of information at all! You once presented a wikipedia link that you thought would prove what you falsely claim and you failed miserably just like kazetnaggora did before you. Even your pathetic failures do not change how you do things. You still repeat the same idiotic lies that have no merit as if repeating lies is going to magically make it truth.

Show your proof if you can find it from a different source, but your past attempts at it show how ignorant and foolish you are. I'm fine with you trying again though. I have no problem with embarrassing you again. Actually, you will be embarrassing yourself again. Havn't you had enough??????