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.
I think most people are under the impression science is beyond politics when in fact it's about as political as it gets at all levels. It's a cut throat business, yes I said business.
Let's say they are right, which I don't believe totally: what are we going to do about it? Shall we go back to horse and buggies? Would we like to give up all our modern day conveniences? of course not. Evolution will always to a factors in climate changes. Yes, of course humans have added to the problem, but what do you want to bet our grandparents and great grandparents said the same things. even science isn't proven. Take, for instance, the latest claim: we would be better off going gluten free and giving up wheat? How many years were we told, only use wheat flour? I think, most intelligent people know everything is a combination of many things. We must also, learn to read with an open mind. Too many only see the side they want to see. 97% did not say climate control is totally man made.
Nita
So if only the U.S. is taking action what difference does it make.
I had this thought well for the last several decades. Sure USA is greener but we are just shifting pollution and jobs to be made elsewhere like India and China.
I had this thought well for the last several decades. Sure USA is greener but we are just shifting pollution and jobs to be made elsewhere like India and China.
China burns 4 to 5 times the amount of coal we do. Within the last decade alone their annunal consumption has increased as much as our total annual consumption.
This headline seems deliberately misleading. NM that they are telling you the very specific studies topic phrase, or that you have no idea about who did the studies, their details, their funding source or that the conclusions are as this study states. Just on it's surface which is all it appears to be seems to clearly have a bias. Then when you look at the details of how this study was done there are even further questions.
Here is the Abstract on the study they are discussing.
quote: Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Last edited by CDusr; 05-18-2013 at 10:58 AM..
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.
