Mantra
Contributor
In most parts of the world, people are absolutely dumbfounded some countries still see this as a debate.
The evidence for man made climate change is overwhelming, rigorous, and has consensus - rhetoric from vested corporate interests and their hired spin doctors notwithstanding.
The problem is that climate change deniers are not as harmless as flat earthers, or people who think the moon landing was faked by Kubrick, or those who believe Obama is made entirely from small Martian sex robots, or whatever. Kooks can be adorable. Kooks who are actively hindering efforts to bring us back from ecological tipping points are not merely ignorant, but dangerous.
Yes, the earth is more robust than many realise. It can self-repair after major extinction events like meteor strikes and ice ages and so on. These adjustments often take a little more time than our species has - millions or tens of millions of years.
EDIT: you guys just put curiosity on the surface of mars. It was a triumph of science and reason. It was incredibly inspirational and no other nation in the world could have done it. And yet this nonsense continues.
---------- Post Merged at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 10:46 PM ----------
If you are going to copy and paste from conservative bloggers, you should at least cite your sources. The article by Joe D'Aleo that you are quoting from here is itself a product of very poor research, is riddled with errors of fact and has been resoundingly discredited. I actually agree with you and him that the EOS poll was poorly conducted and that the 97% claim based on that is misleading. So where does that leave us? Read what you just pasted. A more accurate statement would be that 97% of the climate change experts who responded to the poll believed that global warming has human causes, and that geologists and so on, who are not experts, might think differently. So lets concede that point to D'Aleo. It is mainly the experts in the field who overwhelmingly agree (79 is a decent enough sample size for this niche academic subset). But then let us acknowledge that D'Aleo's article is likewise shamelessly misleading, and comes from a man with an agenda. D'Aleo believes:
""Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
In other words, a mighty sky wizard made this all just perfectly for us, and as such it's perfectly designed so we can't screw it up, no matter what we do. Neato! How cool is that! Thanks, silent, invisible, oddly unverifiable sky wizard!
So lets unentangle from religious and political and corporate interests and ignore the spin (hint: conservative or liberal bloggers have respective axes to grind) and let's try to keep the discussion evidence based. When this debate is kept to the facts, it is all much clearer. Only the lunatic margins still have a problem with the idea that the massive physical changes we have made on the planet over the last hundred or two years are having widespread consequences. We are talking a delicate, interconnected, interdependent closed system. Spaceship earth, as Carl Sagan would have it. When you start tinkering with inconceivably complex machines like the one we live in, unintended consequences not only frequently arise, they can be expected to.
The evidence for man made climate change is overwhelming, rigorous, and has consensus - rhetoric from vested corporate interests and their hired spin doctors notwithstanding.
The problem is that climate change deniers are not as harmless as flat earthers, or people who think the moon landing was faked by Kubrick, or those who believe Obama is made entirely from small Martian sex robots, or whatever. Kooks can be adorable. Kooks who are actively hindering efforts to bring us back from ecological tipping points are not merely ignorant, but dangerous.
Yes, the earth is more robust than many realise. It can self-repair after major extinction events like meteor strikes and ice ages and so on. These adjustments often take a little more time than our species has - millions or tens of millions of years.
EDIT: you guys just put curiosity on the surface of mars. It was a triumph of science and reason. It was incredibly inspirational and no other nation in the world could have done it. And yet this nonsense continues.
---------- Post Merged at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 10:46 PM ----------
Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure…
The LIE that : 97% of scientist agree that global warming is occurring and it is caused by humans.
or (how 79 scientist became 5.8 million)
Frequently in stories and congressional testimony we hear that 97% of the world’s scientists agreed that man is the driver of the climate and that the warming in unequivocal.
Apparently, the poll being referenced was one published in EOS on January 20, 2009. EOS is published by the American Geophysical Union and bills itself as: “The premier international newspaper of the Earth and space sciences, EOS seeks to forge strong interdisciplinary ties among geophysicists and place the important contributions of geophysics in the context of the social and policy-making arenas”.
The researchers sent an online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies, and generated responses from 3,146 people to the following questions.
Q 1. :When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Few who have studied climate change would object to the first. Certainly the earth is warmer than during the Little ice Age.
Most skeptics would object or disagree on the second. If one includes urbanization and land use changes such as deforestation and irrigation, certainly, man affects local even regional climate often in a significant way.
The researchers then boiled down the numbers to those who self identified themselves as those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total).
Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered ‘risen’ to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
Thus, the touted 97% figure is based on the responses of 0.75% of those polled, just 77 to 79 scientists, certainly a minute fraction of 5.8 million scientists (AAAS). And the questions asked are ones even the most ardent skeptics may have answered yes.
Huh, go figure...
If you are going to copy and paste from conservative bloggers, you should at least cite your sources. The article by Joe D'Aleo that you are quoting from here is itself a product of very poor research, is riddled with errors of fact and has been resoundingly discredited. I actually agree with you and him that the EOS poll was poorly conducted and that the 97% claim based on that is misleading. So where does that leave us? Read what you just pasted. A more accurate statement would be that 97% of the climate change experts who responded to the poll believed that global warming has human causes, and that geologists and so on, who are not experts, might think differently. So lets concede that point to D'Aleo. It is mainly the experts in the field who overwhelmingly agree (79 is a decent enough sample size for this niche academic subset). But then let us acknowledge that D'Aleo's article is likewise shamelessly misleading, and comes from a man with an agenda. D'Aleo believes:
""Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
In other words, a mighty sky wizard made this all just perfectly for us, and as such it's perfectly designed so we can't screw it up, no matter what we do. Neato! How cool is that! Thanks, silent, invisible, oddly unverifiable sky wizard!
So lets unentangle from religious and political and corporate interests and ignore the spin (hint: conservative or liberal bloggers have respective axes to grind) and let's try to keep the discussion evidence based. When this debate is kept to the facts, it is all much clearer. Only the lunatic margins still have a problem with the idea that the massive physical changes we have made on the planet over the last hundred or two years are having widespread consequences. We are talking a delicate, interconnected, interdependent closed system. Spaceship earth, as Carl Sagan would have it. When you start tinkering with inconceivably complex machines like the one we live in, unintended consequences not only frequently arise, they can be expected to.
Last edited: