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.
Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.
In this study the 97% figure is 76 self described climate scientists.
Quote:
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
What is the quantification of significant? Certainly if man has had any effect at all on climate that could be considered significant?
why do the fascist liberals deny science...because they want to tax it
NOT ONE scientist has proven MANMADE global warming
the globe evolves..the global enviroment changes..periodicly...there have been WARMER TIMES..there have been cooler times..there have been times when C02 was MUCH, MUCH higher
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-10000 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm
Why do liberals DENY science???...because with the science they cant get their TAX..so they manipulate the science
If you really want to learn more about the issues you raise, try this website:
do you have a link to the article you are talking about?
It not an article, it's the study you are referencing.........
Quote:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate
change) are 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 questionand 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question2.
This is why you need to actually go and read what you are citing instead or relying on some web page to spoon feed it to you. .
It not an article, it's the study you are referencing.........
This is why you need to actually go and read what you are citing instead or relying on some web page to spoon feed it to you. .
There were only 79 super-specialized climate scientists in that particular study, but there were 3146 scientists of the following types:
More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants
asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology
each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents.
It doesn't change the fact that hundreds of scientific organizations which represent literally hundreds of thousands of scientists of all types endorse the view that global warming involves man-made causes.
I will take yourword for it but world wide deforestation is rampant.
Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much of the lower 48 states have been cleared away. Most of the remaining old-growth forests in the lower 48 states and Alaska are on public lands. In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is slated for logging.
Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much of the lower 48 states have been cleared away. Most of the remaining old-growth forests in the lower 48 states and Alaska are on public lands. In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is slated for logging.
Today, the forests of the United
States cover 749 million acres, are split almost
evenly east and west of the central plain, and
contain over 800 species of trees of which 82 are
non-native. About one-third of the pre-European
settlement forest has been cleared, primarily for
agriculture during the 19th century. Although
there have been significant regional changes, the
total area of forest land has been fairly stable for
nearly 100 years.
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.
