Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How far have we already gone?
- Thread starter Old Rocks
- Start date
At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects? According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.
AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube
Buuuullllcraaaaap. Zero empirical evidence to support that. Typical alarmist yap yap. You guys crack me up. What was the temp during the Holocene Thermal Maximum? What happened then? Riiiiight, a whole lot of nuthin. Animals did good as did plant life.
Once again historical fact rears its ugly head and bites you in the ass.
- May 20, 2009
- 144,673
- 67,194
- 2,330
ZOMG!!!
It's the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster!
It's the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster!
The ignorance you guys display at every turn is simply astounding.
Says the person who is taking a position opposed by almost every scientist on earth.
To my mind there have been two ways people can respond to news about climate change.
One has been to read a lot of news, particularly from sources we know and trust, and compare that with our own experience.
The other is to ridicule the science and go with blind faith.
I'm fine with you doing the latter.
Trotting out that old meme are we? Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....
A survey was sent out to over 3000 scientists. They responded to some questions. The people doing the survey then, through some tortuous methodology, eliminated all but the climatologists (there were 79 of those) and even after all of that ridiculous culling THEY STILL COULDN'T get ALL of the climatologists to agree, hence the 74 of 79 climatologists has become the meme of 97% of the WORLDS scientists believe this crap.
That is called a lie on my world. What's it called on yours?
laughinReaper
Senior Member
- Dec 5, 2011
- 3,839
- 584
- 48
We're all fucked so we might as well get fucked. Commence bumping like bunnies 
Peer review!The ignorance you guys display at every turn is simply astounding.
Says the person who is taking a position opposed by almost every scientist on earth.
To my mind there have been two ways people can respond to news about climate change.
One has been to read a lot of news, particularly from sources we know and trust, and compare that with our own experience.
The other is to ridicule the science and go with blind faith.
I'm fine with you doing the latter.
Trotting out that old meme are we? Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....
A survey was sent out to over 3000 scientists. They responded to some questions. The people doing the survey then, through some tortuous methodology, eliminated all but the climatologists (there were 79 of those) and even after all of that ridiculous culling THEY STILL COULDN'T get ALL of the climatologists to agree, hence the 74 of 79 climatologists has become the meme of 97% of the WORLDS scientists believe this crap.
That is called a lie on my world. What's it called on yours?
Saigon
Gold Member
Trotting out that old meme are we? Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....
A survey was sent out to over 3000 scientists. They responded to some questions. The people doing the survey then, through some tortuous methodology, eliminated all but the climatologists (there were 79 of those) and even after all of that ridiculous culling THEY STILL COULDN'T get ALL of the climatologists to agree, hence the 74 of 79 climatologists has become the meme of 97% of the WORLDS scientists believe this crap.
That is called a lie on my world. What's it called on yours?
Seriously - that is your BEST response?!
You can find nothing at all to fault the science involved in creating the thousand or so major research projects conducted in the past decade?
Why not admit - you have no reason at all to conclude that the US Geological Society, British Academy of Sciences or US Meteorological Service are wrong, do you?
If you do have a reaon - let's see it.
- May 20, 2009
- 144,673
- 67,194
- 2,330
Trotting out that old meme are we? Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....
A survey was sent out to over 3000 scientists. They responded to some questions. The people doing the survey then, through some tortuous methodology, eliminated all but the climatologists (there were 79 of those) and even after all of that ridiculous culling THEY STILL COULDN'T get ALL of the climatologists to agree, hence the 74 of 79 climatologists has become the meme of 97% of the WORLDS scientists believe this crap.
That is called a lie on my world. What's it called on yours?
Seriously - that is your BEST response?!
You can find nothing at all to fault the science involved in creating the thousand or so major research projects conducted in the past decade?
Why not admit - you have no reason at all to conclude that the US Geological Society, British Academy of Sciences or US Meteorological Service are wrong, do you?
If you do have a reaon - let's see it.
This isn't "Science"
Saigon
Gold Member
Crsuader Frank -
No, it's a model. A designed to help people understand science by making it simple.
I'd be delighted to post a dozen peer-reviewed pieces of science here, all of which were conducted by US PhD level researchers, and which have been impeccably conducted. Perhaps we could start with one concerning the collapse of Alaska glaciers.
Will you commit to reading it?
No, it's a model. A designed to help people understand science by making it simple.
I'd be delighted to post a dozen peer-reviewed pieces of science here, all of which were conducted by US PhD level researchers, and which have been impeccably conducted. Perhaps we could start with one concerning the collapse of Alaska glaciers.
Will you commit to reading it?
- May 20, 2009
- 144,673
- 67,194
- 2,330
Crsuader Frank -
No, it's a model. A designed to help people understand science by making it simple.
I'd be delighted to post a dozen peer-reviewed pieces of science here, all of which were conducted by US PhD level researchers, and which have been impeccably conducted. Perhaps we could start with one concerning the collapse of Alaska glaciers.
Will you commit to reading it?
Post whatever you want, I've probably read them and it's still not science.
Saigon
Gold Member
Crusader -
If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.
As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?
If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.
As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?
Trotting out that old meme are we? Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....
A survey was sent out to over 3000 scientists. They responded to some questions. The people doing the survey then, through some tortuous methodology, eliminated all but the climatologists (there were 79 of those) and even after all of that ridiculous culling THEY STILL COULDN'T get ALL of the climatologists to agree, hence the 74 of 79 climatologists has become the meme of 97% of the WORLDS scientists believe this crap.
That is called a lie on my world. What's it called on yours?
Seriously - that is your BEST response?!
You can find nothing at all to fault the science involved in creating the thousand or so major research projects conducted in the past decade?
Why not admit - you have no reason at all to conclude that the US Geological Society, British Academy of Sciences or US Meteorological Service are wrong, do you?
If you do have a reaon - let's see it.
What science? There is not one iota of empirical data to support the warmist claims. Not one. The ENTIRE fiction of AGW has been built on the code of computer models that are so poorly written they can't recreate the weather that occured yesterday with all the variables known.
Look at 90% of the "studies" that are trotted out and they are computer models. There was even one where they ran three computer models and then averaged the runs as if it were actual data. That is the height of absurdity but that is the level to which it has sunk.
Now CRU has been forced to release their YAMAL data and of course it is becoming patently obvious that their "results" are fradulent. That is why they refused to release ANY data in complete contravention of the scientific method where releasing your raw data and source code is MANDATORY so that other scientists can check your work.
I don't care that you are a true believer, I too was a believer (notice how I use religious terms?, That's because the AGW crowd left science by the side of the road years ago, now it is a religion) I am also however a scientist...a real one. Upon review of the "science" of AGW (or more to the point the lack thereof, I changed my mind.
The public at large is changing their minds too. And it's not in your favour. They are tired of throwing money down the rathole that you represent. A tremendous amount of good things could have been accomplished with the 100 billion that has been squandered so far...interestingly enough the Manhattan Project only cost around 23 billion adjusted for inflation and in three years we had a nuclear weapon and a short two years after that the basics of nuclear power plants were designed.
After 100 billion wasted dollars we have this....for an investment of 76 trillion dollars we can lower the temperature of the globe by one degree.....maybe. That is the best that your IPCC can come up with.
Pathetic. And you lap it up. Here's an idea. Go take some science classes and then do some serious research on your own.
Saigon
Gold Member
Westwall
what science?
Well, one site I looked at the other day lists 800 peer reviewed papers. All conducted by
noted, qualified scientists. I'm not aware of any accusations of fraud or poor science about any of them.
Of course you can troll through blogs trying to find evidence of poor science, and inevitably you'll come across one or two, but you won't find many, and probably none that involve Real Scientists. You seem to be using one or two poor examples ti discredit the entire field of scientific endevaour, which strikes me as being entirely countr-productive to understanding any issue.
Rather than rely on blind faith, why not be open minded ans read a few of the good pieces of research?
what science?
Well, one site I looked at the other day lists 800 peer reviewed papers. All conducted by
noted, qualified scientists. I'm not aware of any accusations of fraud or poor science about any of them.
Of course you can troll through blogs trying to find evidence of poor science, and inevitably you'll come across one or two, but you won't find many, and probably none that involve Real Scientists. You seem to be using one or two poor examples ti discredit the entire field of scientific endevaour, which strikes me as being entirely countr-productive to understanding any issue.
Rather than rely on blind faith, why not be open minded ans read a few of the good pieces of research?
Last edited:
Crusader -
If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.
As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?
No, it's based on historical fact. All of AGW "theory" requires you to ignore what occured more than 40 years ago. It is a somewhat magical wall that states no historical data from the past may be used as that will confound the meme they are trying to present. Namely that what is occuring now is somehow different from the past. It's not. Everything that is happening today has happened in the past and based on the Vostock ice core data it was warmer in the past, the Medieval Warming Period was at least 1.5 degrees warmer than today. The Roman Warming Period was even warmer than that.
The warmists claim that those two events were regional only (well Mann tried to disappear the MWP completely as it screwed up his tall tale) but there are over 100 peer reviewed studies that show it to have been gloabl and warmer. The same for the FWP. Or how about the elephant in room, the Holocene Thermal Maximum? 8000 years ago the temps were 6 degrees warmer and none of the catastrophic effects the warmists claim will end civilisation occured.
Or how about the meme that global warming is leading to mass extinctions? The last time we had major warming like back the HTM was during the PETM and other than a few foraminfera that went extinct all other life forms bloomed. In fact the majority of the mammals that we enjoy today EVOLVED during the PETM. So you tell me, how can critters that evolved during the PETM when it was significantly warmer, be in danger of the warming now?
Westwall
what science?
Well, one site I looked at the other day lists 800 peer reviewed papers. All conducted by
no ted, qualified scientist. I'm not aware of any accusations of fraud or poor science about any of them.
Rather than rely on blind faith, why not be open minded ans read a few of them.
You mean the pal reviewed crap they trot out? Almost wholly made up of computer models? That "science". Or how about the meme that only climatologists are somehow qualified to interpret what they say? You like that one too? How religious of you. Only the hogh priests can interpret the word of God you say.
Well here's the deal. I'm a geologist with a PhD from Caltech. I can teach ANY climatology class you choose to have me teach with the exception of the computer code they teach. You see it is so antiquated we stopped using it over 20 years ago. It was a poor language then, and it is a joke now. How about those climatologists you speak so highly of? Well, they are not qualified to teach any graduate level geology class at all. They would be compleatly lost. They have no clue how to do real science (most of them, there are some legitimate ones out there but they are few and far between) and geology is HARD. Third year students found that out when the real math, chemistry and physics hit them and they bailed on geology and instead pursued geography which is much easier.
Guess what, the MAJORITY of climatologists have bachelors in geography. My field was far too hard for them so they went for the soft science instead. My field requires accuracy. If I make a prediction it will be there or I have missed the boat. Climatologists on the other hand cover their bases by predicting BOTH sides of a problem. Warming will cause no snow, it will cause more snow etc. There are over 30 peer reviewed "studies" that take both sides of a prediction.
That is a pseado science on every planet but the one you live on.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #36
Walleyes claims to be a Geologists. So what do geologists state concerning AGW?
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change
Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.
Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the large effects on humans and ecosystems if greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.
Rationale
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about the amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.7 °C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than a century; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006).
Measurements from satellites, which began in 1979, initially did not show a warming trend, but later studies (Mears and Wentz, 2005; Santer et al., 2008) found that the satellite data had not been fully adjusted for losses of satellite elevation through time, differences in time of arrival over a given location, and removal of higher-elevation effects on the lower tropospheric signal. With these factors taken into account, the satellite data are now in basic agreement with ground-station data and confirm a warming trend since 1979. In a related study, Sherwood et al. (2005) found problems with corrections of tropical daytime radiosonde measurements and largely resolved a previous discrepancy with ground-station trends. With instrumental discrepancies having been resolved, recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies and is no longer open to serious challenge.
The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change.
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change
Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.
Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the large effects on humans and ecosystems if greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.
Rationale
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about the amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.7 °C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than a century; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006).
Measurements from satellites, which began in 1979, initially did not show a warming trend, but later studies (Mears and Wentz, 2005; Santer et al., 2008) found that the satellite data had not been fully adjusted for losses of satellite elevation through time, differences in time of arrival over a given location, and removal of higher-elevation effects on the lower tropospheric signal. With these factors taken into account, the satellite data are now in basic agreement with ground-station data and confirm a warming trend since 1979. In a related study, Sherwood et al. (2005) found problems with corrections of tropical daytime radiosonde measurements and largely resolved a previous discrepancy with ground-station trends. With instrumental discrepancies having been resolved, recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies and is no longer open to serious challenge.
The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #37
AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #38
Crsuader Frank -
No, it's a model. A designed to help people understand science by making it simple.
I'd be delighted to post a dozen peer-reviewed pieces of science here, all of which were conducted by US PhD level researchers, and which have been impeccably conducted. Perhaps we could start with one concerning the collapse of Alaska glaciers.
Will you commit to reading it?
Post whatever you want, I've probably read them and it's still not science.
LOL. Frankie Boy believes the moon is hollow and artificial, that is the extent of his scientific prowess.LOL
Saigon
Gold Member
The public at large is changing their minds too. And it's not in your favour. .
A BBC study released last year showed that around 77% of people around the world believed human acitivity may be influencing the climate.
Of the 20 countries surveyed, the number of people accepting this rose in 19 countries. Only in the US is it falling. Why that might be is hard to say, but I suspect it is because only in the US is this a political topic. Outside the US it really is not political at all, and most conservative parties around the world are as clear about the need to address climate change as liberal ones are.
In countries clearly most affected by climate change - such as Spain, Australia and a lot of island nations - around 85%+ of people accept that human acitivity influences the climate.
Whichever way you cut it, the belief that human acitivity is in no way influencing the climate is becoming a fringe belief, and something that exists anywhere outside the lunatic fringe only in the US.
I can link this study, but I suspect again you won't have the stomach to read it.
Westwall
what science?
Well, one site I looked at the other day lists 800 peer reviewed papers. All conducted by
noted, qualified scientists. I'm not aware of any accusations of fraud or poor science about any of them.
Of course you can troll through blogs trying to find evidence of poor science, and inevitably you'll come across one or two, but you won't find many, and probably none that involve Real Scientists. You seem to be using one or two poor examples ti discredit the entire field of scientific endevaour, which strikes me as being entirely countr-productive to understanding any issue.
Rather than rely on blind faith, why not be open minded ans read a few of the good pieces of research?
Who pays these "noted, qualified scientist"? Why are they paid? Someone has a stake in the results of all of that "science".
It's adorable how pure you leftist think "scientist" are, just the cutest thing.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 170
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 218
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 155
- Replies
- 162
- Views
- 28K
- Replies
- 77
- Views
- 326
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8110
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-