Climate change is real says 97% of scientists

Yeah shysters like Obama, Gore, Clinton, the UN and the entire Radical Left wing cabal. ALL out to enrich themselves on the backs of dummies around the world.

 

Heh. Didn't you just do the very thing you accused liberals of doing?

If I'm liberal, it's only in a classic sense. I tend to agree with the libertarians.

- - - Updated - - -

The people and the organisation you named are shysters in their own right, I suppose, but not so much where global warming is concerned.

 

Umm..it wasn't SKEPTIC who GOT CAUGHT RED HANDED ALTERING THE EMPIRICAL TEMP DATA,to "fit" their "climate models", was it?

Make up some more NONSENSE.

 

Yes, that was the point. But saying most Democrats lean right is NOT really opinion. Its fact. There is no disputing it. Now compare that with saying Right Wingers, which means anyone leaning to the right, don't believe in evolution. One is a fact. The other is fabrication. I know plenty of religious Christians who believe in evolution. You can believe in God and science...hope you know that?

 

Heh, well, there's always a point or three where God and science collide. Evolution doesn't really leave room for God.

 

“What is cited in the thread title and OP is NOT scientific method. It is a popularity contest.” (Grokmaster)

“Yes…” (me)

Application of the scientific method would conclude you are not paying attention.

 

This is quite off topic, but who ever told you they don't coexist...God-->Man<-->science. Who said god didn't create evolution to create man? Quite simple really.

 

Not really. Southern Democrats are the right-wingers of that region... because Lincoln was a Republican. Southern Democrats were the ones opposed to abolition, and who supported the Jim Crow laws.

In Washington, that type of Democrat was nick-named Dixiecats.

 

Exactly... for a Being with a life-span of infinity, five billion years to achieve a goal is a blink in time.

Anyway, I'd be curious to read the names of the 3% of scientists who do *not* think global warming is happening.

Are we sure that members of the Church of Christ, Scientist, or Scientology didn't get mixed up in the batch?

 

Ice flows damaging homes... Clearly a right wing conspiracy against global warming. (Oh sorry what's it called now . .. . climatology ... climate change.)

http://wqad.com/2013/05/13/viral-video-ice-crawl-damages-homes-in-minnesota/

 

To clarify the OP, here is a summary from one of the study's authors:
[h=2]Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature[/h]http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

Published in a peer-reviewed journal:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

The study surveyed a broad set of papers related to global warming or climate change and first determined which ones addressed the issue of human causation. Many studies cover other aspects such as the effects of global warming (which can be independent of causation), and therefore don't address the question. Of the studies that addressed the question, over 97% agreed that humans are responsible for global warming. Agreement increased over time (meaning more studies disagreed further back in time), indicating a strengthening consensus over time. The study is similar to the Oreskes 2004 study, but far more comprehensive. The conclusion is contrary to the impression deniers are always trying to foster within their media circles claiming a crumbling consensus or widespread scientific disagreement at the core issues. That is denier propaganda.

Correcting the OP, the study measures a consensus within the peer-reviewed literature, not specifically among qualified scientists. This, however, has been addressed in other recent studies, and results in a similar percentage. Example:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

 

Are there any indications or any scientific independant evidence, which proves, that humans are not the main cause of global warming? I'd like to get a serious piece...

 

Why would I care one way or the other? The two subjects are unrelated and there are plenty of very pro-evolution folks who are skeptics of AGW. You just don't hear about them because it isn't newsworthy. It's boring to be a normal, rational, skeptic. The 'crazies' on both sides are sexy and make life more "interesting".

 

Wiki has a list and of those few a handful only are saying it is not happening at all - the rest dispute some of the data i.e. that it is anthropogenic, or that it is happening as fast as predicted etc etc etc

 

So would I

So far briefly perusing this thread we have come up with the same old same old from the same old same old right wing, won't change my mind even when it hits me in the face crowd and the most common responses are:-

Climate is changing because it always has so there (Presumably these people think change can happen all by itself - in which case I would hate to see the state of their underpants)
Carbon dioxide does not cause the greenhouse effect 'coz there is no proof that it does (despite there being proof for over a hundred years)
China and India are making pollution so why do we have to clean up ours (I call this the dirty bedroom excuse - but MUUUUUM Billy's bedroom is dirty so why do I have to clean up miiiiiine?)

With a few other variants in between

Oh! and

"We cannot afford it"

Which makes me laugh because I have been hearing that one for forever so I doubt there will be a time they think we can "afford it" (same people want third world countries to clean up their act first)

Truth is that since the Stern Review it has been proven we cannot afford to ignore it. If for no other reason than your insurance bills will blow you out of the water

- - - Updated - - -

Reakky??? Name them

 

climate CHANGE

It is climate CHANGE

Not "we will never have another cold day again"

 

All you guys against it are becaue you have investments in and/or employment from those causing it.

How about if someone were to show you a way to shift your invesments to a way where you get the same income from there being not climate f*ck up?

 

That is just nonsense. Stop deluding yourself into believing that. This is about everyone's standard of living being impacted. CO2 is an ubiquitous molecule. Capping and regulating CO2 emissions, therefore, would give politicians and bureaucrats unprecedented control over global commerce as well as people's personal lives. Not only that, there is the issue of SCIENCE to consider, and so far the climatologists have failed and failed miserably to convince the broader scientific community of the validity of their research.

Do you actually believe that would happen!? That people can just adapt seamlessly to a paradigm-shifting alteration in global commerce?

 

Another crap study that does not use a valid sample. From the study: Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most high-pro&#64257;le reports and public statements about ACC.

Did you get that? Not comprehensive or representative. The samples produced by both studies cited in this thread (yours and the OP's) both use hopelessly biased, utterly outrageous sampling methodologies.

 

Actually, 97% of the scientific community agrees, so that means you have investments in fossile fuels, and you want your grand-kids to deal with the results, which means you hate your wife, and don't care if your grand-kids suffer, because they are not the ones you would have had if you'd married the woman you wanted.

It's tough, but belive it or not, the northern nations able to see it happening are doing exactly those kinds of government plans you probably hate.

For example, Russia talked to Canada about developing a shippng lane between Mirmask and Churchill, because of the open water.


What do you want? How do you want the world to be? What would it be like if everything was perfect according to your idea of the best way to live?

 

And how much is it costing now?

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/failing-to-curb-global-0275.html

 

Fear-mongering based on speculation.

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/05/climate-change-insurance/65259/

Aparantly insurance companies are even preparing for climiate change and theyre the ones who risks revolve around the enviroment

 

Now that man made climate change has been proven to be fact, how do we deal with it?