Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A survey of 80 unnamed scientists does not equal 97% of scientist. Go ahead, cite your source and you will quickly see that it was a cooked claim.
Here is some of problems with those you will cite (which we know you won't because you likely don't even know who the authors of the original research are).
So again, we are back to the dark ages of fear mongers proclaiming the end of the world using the science of their dogma to validate their claims.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).
Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
....try again maybe this time with your head out of the sand.
"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys."
the argument is over. Only morons deny that climate change is happening and being caused by human activity.
Because Wikipedia says so? LOL
Copying and pasting the first paragraph from a Wikipedia article is not doing your argument any good. The only thing that shows is you know how to copy and paste and make poor choices for references.
Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
Since you're citing a specific paper now we're getting somewhere. Putting aside the methodology and technical issues associated with the Doran study lets get right down to the meat.
Firstly your source has the percentage wrong. It's a little higher. While were at it here's a tip, don't rely on bloggers to spoon feed you what information they deem relevant. Go right to the source.
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledge-able respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate sci-ence 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 individu-als in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to ques-tion 2.
In this case the consensus consists of 75 self described climate scientists most of whom reside in the US (this mostly US scientists is one of the issues).
Secondly lets look at the question they answered yes too:
Quote:
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
What is the quantification of significant? For example if you give some bum on the street 20 bucks that's a significant amount of money to him, for Donald Trump it's insignificant.
Testing of what? Assumption of what? How you can get testing and assumption going without observations and common sense? All, as in ALL, basic physics quantities are a product of direct observations and common sense.
Observation yes, this is part of it. As for common sense, that isn't a component of science as what makes "sense" to our perception, is not always reality. An example would be optical physics. This is why we test empirically in science. We make an observation, make an assumption, and then test according to that assumption. If it consistently shows to result in our assumption with all deviations properly explained and accounted for, then it is "reasonable" to believe this is a realistic description to the limit of our discovery (ie until new information breaks our previous assumptions).
The point is, we don't conclude based on "common sense", that is and has never been a process of science.
Its not that I don't care about science, I find it useful. My career is in the health field, where anatomy, physics and physiology are the base of what I do. But then I discovered that intuition is an even more powerful tool. Truth. Not saying intuition makes all my decisions for me, but don't discount it. You're obviously a Myer's Briggs type ST....can't stand those types. Maybe I should start quizzing you on physiological systems and see if you're educated enough to answer that branch of 'science'. Then deem you an idiot when you can't. Yeah.....do you see how ridiculous you are?
What point would that serve? Science is process that transcends discipline. Questioning me on facts of a given discipline in order to suggest I don't know scientific process would be ignorant of the points of the discussion. The problem with you using intuition to establish facts is that your perception is not a valid means of identification of such. Your intuition can be wrong, can mislead you, be subject to bias, and give you false impressions. This is why we have a proper empirical process for testing. We don't shoot from the hip in science when it comes to validating a given position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjay
I've always made fun of bible thumpers, so not sure what you're talking about. My 'faith' has nothing to do with religion, because I don't believe in religion. I know when I sh*t it stinks, and if I eat it I could get sick. Real easy. No 'scientific' explanation needed.
Faith is a component of religious dogma. It is to "believe without evidence" to which faith exists. Science is a process of establishing a given belief through a rigorous process of verification, validation, and replication. Science can be wrong, but it thoroughly tests a given assumption within the limits of our understanding to a consistent result. When we establish a given fact, we don't claim it is "absolute", but rather we say that it has consistently shown itself to be such through all tests. We accept this to be a truth within the confines of our understanding because our assumption does not fail to any means that can not be validated within our assumption.
You use anecdotal evaluation, which is limited in its understanding and largely subject to bias. Such evaluation is not logical, nor is it scientific. Many were burned at the stake according to such loose and "matter of fact" evaluations. Dogmatic systems of belief do not promote understanding, they foster ignorance.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).
Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
....try again maybe this time with your head out of the sand.
My links dealt with the problems of those papers and thecoalman pointed out some of those for you. I am not sure why you are arrogantly proclaiming victory. /shrug
"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys."
the argument is over. Only morons deny that climate change is happening and being caused by human activity.
If you are using wiki as your defense, then you are showing us that you severely lack understanding of the discussion. I suggest you look to the actual papers and evaluate them more closely to the points made in the links I provided. Each one points out why those papers and their claims are misleading and somewhat devious in their attempt to generalize their claim.
Yes, we should wake up and see the changes, every bit of change is a sign of danger for the life on earth, If each Individual does his bit and if everyone is concerned and do their bit, then we can stop this happening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
