Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Global Warming Consensus?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

Actually there is, if you count scientists, rather than commentators. The scientific consensus that man-made GHG emissions are causing climate change is supported by approximately 97% of the most qualified scientiists (those publishing significant numbers of peer reviewed papers in this area) and virtually all national and international scientific organizations. For some examples, see:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...le#erl460291s2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g-so-what-now/
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/...lic-know-that/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-consensus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226644325476

There seem to be a proliferation of global warming threads, many of which could be consolidated into the initial thread on this subject. See:

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
 
Really, why are all the admitted "I am not a scientist, but..." politicians listened to by anyone? If you are not a scientist, then you don't know anything about climate change unless you spend all your waking hours doing research on existing data like actual scientists do! You are not a skeptic, as are scientists. You are simply denying thel facts. You are free to have an opinion as to why or how much of climate change is due to human activity, as that has not been fully established. But, you cannot deny that the earth's moving average temperature has been increasing since the dawn of the industrial age and the beginning of large scale increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels. C'mon, man. :confused:
 
RichardC has posted a nice list of links to refute the OP, but let me add one more:

Home | James Lawrence Powell

The article below, under review by Environmental Research Letters and submitted Jan. 9, 2015, appears with the consent of the journal’s editor. It critiques an article by Cook et al. [CEA] which describes the results of their survey of the peer-reviewed literature on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Their article is the basis for the widely believed “97% consensus” on AGW.

If the consensus were 97%, then if you read, say, 300 peer-reviewed articles you should find on average 9 that reject AGW. Instead, to find even a single rejecting article, you must read nearly 5,000. Try your hand at reviewing articles using a random selection of 300 here. You will quickly confirm that the true consensus on AGW cannot possibly be as low as 97%.

Basically, his point is that the actual real consensus of the Climate Scientists is about 99.98%, not 97%.
 
*sigh*

........ this is never going to end is it..... no matter how much evidence is gathered..... no matter how undeniable AGW becomes..... even when 100% of climate scientists agree...

I guess if we can have millions of Americans that honestly believe the earth is ~6000 years old I shouldn't be surprised that it's also possible for people to believe that adding significant quantities of a heat trapping gas somehow won't trap heat...

isaac-asimov-anti-intelluctualism-political-cultural-life.jpg
 
*sigh*

........ this is never going to end is it..... no matter how much evidence is gathered..... no matter how undeniable AGW becomes..... even when 100% of climate scientists agree...

I guess if we can have millions of Americans that honestly believe the earth is ~6000 years old I shouldn't be surprised that it's also possible for people to believe that adding significant quantities of a heat trapping gas somehow won't trap heat...
You have to be patient... the church didn't acknowledge Galileo's heliocentric evidence until 1992.... sometimes the obvious takes a little time... :cool:
 
Why I Left Greenpeace - YouTube

The flavor of the day... Co2.

..... where in that video does Patrick Moore mention CO2?

The video in which he does refer to CO2 defies any scientific understanding of how CO2 works.

It's funny... saying, 'climate change occurred before fossil fuels => this climate change is natural'... sounds about right to ideologues. But; saying, 'wildfires occurred before matches => this wildfire must be natural'... sounds completely insane; Even though it's pretty much the exact same statement.

Or... it would be funny if the consequences of denial weren't so tragic.


To be filed under "Examining the data".... ;)

Yep; At least I accepted reality with sufficient evidence :redface:



I think it's important to take a moment and put this debate in historical context... it's not like a bunch of hippies woke up one day looking for a scapegoat for the worlds ills...

~1800
Sir William Herschel discovers Infrared Radiation... the primary mechanism by which the Earth cools.

~1820
Joseph Fourier does some math and discovers that the Earth is far warmer than it should be given its distance from the sun... coins the term 'Greenhouse effect'

~1896
Svante Arrhenius publishes the first paper connecting CO2, fossil fuels and climate sensitivity. At a basic level the math and physics is so straight forward that the general equation still applies today. AGW not considered likely since CO2 emissions would have to increase dramatically....

~1979
JASON the super-secret; super-elite; science A-Team tasked with looking into this whole 'global warming' thing. Hey... guess what... CO2 emissions have increased dramatically since 1896. JASON reports, 'Since CO2 plays a significant role in the heat budget of the atmosphere, it is reasonable to suppose that continued increases would affect climate' In 1981 the Reagan administration asks when this will begin causing problems... JASON responds, '30-40 years'; Reagan, 'Then get back to us in 30-40 years'.

~2014
DOD issues its quadrennial review; The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placingadditional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty,environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enableterrorist activity and other forms of violence.
 
Last edited: