Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
"Science", the people who follow the method, and especially the professionals among those, are saying that it's 90% certain that Man is contributing (to an as yet uncertain degree) to this latest round of warming. So science IS saying manmade CO2 is causing warming.
That you value small government and low taxes does not change this, even if the possible ramifications of acting upon the science run counter to your values.
Indeed.
Science should be before ideology.
Otherwise we are all fucked.
1.what are you talking about... show us the links to studies... showing a consensus that man made co2 is causing the warming.
all the studies... even the phony ones... which pretend man caused more than half the recent warming... do not say man made co2 caused the warming... they say man... at least not in any of the links you lefties have provided.
2. if you are referring to consensus studies...
please see the first this thread for the paper published in an established journal which debunks the 97% consensus.
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it."
3. Please send me a link to your science showing man made co2 causes warming on the earth.
If you can't provide a link the only fair conclusion is that you do not have any science, just opinion.
all the studies... even the phony ones... which pretend man caused more than half the recent warming... do not say man made co2 caused the warming... they say man... at least not in any of the links you lefties have provided.
2. if you are referring to consensus studies...
please see the first this thread for the paper published in an established journal which debunks the 97% consensus.
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it."
3. Please send me a link to your science showing man made co2 causes warming on the earth.
If you can't provide a link the only fair conclusion is that you do not have any science, just opinion.
It is not reasonable to question global warming. We are either in a warming period, or we are not, according to our adopted criteria and observations.
It is perfectly reasonable, however, to ask what is causing warming or cooling. We know many of the important factors, if not all of them, that contribute to our global environmental temperatures. The question has been asked:" how important is man made emission of CO2 in establishing global temperatures." That's a good question. Some scientists think it has been answered satisfactorily, and others think not; there is a wide range of opinions from relatively important to entirely negligible.
It is unfortunate that many reached early conclusions based on informed guesswork and observations that supported their conclusions. Now we are in the process of becoming better informed, our data is improving, and our understanding of it is improving. We are beginning to recognize that perhaps our earlier conclusions were flawed and we need to revisit them. This has resulted in increasing, not less, uncertainty. Scientists know that any hypothesis can never be shown to be correct with absolute certainty, but that a single inconsistent observation is enough to cause an entire hypothesis to be questioned.
Unfortunately the question of man's contribution to global temperature has ended up in the political arena as well as the scientific one. This has muddied the waters, to the point that some even see the question in terms of political ideology, which from a scientist's perspective is incredibly stupid. You can't answer scientific questions with opinion polls, even opinion polls among only scientist experts; yet everyday we see attempts to do just that!
Scientists know that it is not their personal opinions that matter, but the fit of observations to their models and ultimately the success of their models in predicting future observations.
It is perfectly reasonable, however, to ask what is causing warming or cooling. We know many of the important factors, if not all of them, that contribute to our global environmental temperatures. The question has been asked:" how important is man made emission of CO2 in establishing global temperatures." That's a good question. Some scientists think it has been answered satisfactorily, and others think not; there is a wide range of opinions from relatively important to entirely negligible.
It is unfortunate that many reached early conclusions based on informed guesswork and observations that supported their conclusions. Now we are in the process of becoming better informed, our data is improving, and our understanding of it is improving. We are beginning to recognize that perhaps our earlier conclusions were flawed and we need to revisit them. This has resulted in increasing, not less, uncertainty. Scientists know that any hypothesis can never be shown to be correct with absolute certainty, but that a single inconsistent observation is enough to cause an entire hypothesis to be questioned.
Unfortunately the question of man's contribution to global temperature has ended up in the political arena as well as the scientific one. This has muddied the waters, to the point that some even see the question in terms of political ideology, which from a scientist's perspective is incredibly stupid. You can't answer scientific questions with opinion polls, even opinion polls among only scientist experts; yet everyday we see attempts to do just that!
Scientists know that it is not their personal opinions that matter, but the fit of observations to their models and ultimately the success of their models in predicting future observations.