97% of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans, study finds

[Gheld]

Okay. You have two options.

Go with the scientists, switch to green energy.

Ignore scientists, continue the industrial plan as is.

What happens if you follow the first scenario and the scientists are wrong? Better living conditions, more habitable nature-rich areas, clean air and water. What happens if you ignore the scientists and they are right? Worse living conditions, economic disasters, wars and extreme storms.

So why don't make the switch either way? It doesn't even matter if the scientists are right.

If we save just ONE baby.

[TZucchini]

Was this an anonymous poll? Or did the scientists have to reveal their identity upon taking it?

This wasn't a poll. It was a meta-study. For example, one of the many studies involved looks at 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

And it's overwhelmingly clear. There is a global scientific consensus. Humans are causing changes within earths climate.

[Deleted]

If we save just ONE baby.

"I am this smart because I posted this meme."

[Kretan]

See, this kind of thinking is exactly what I find absolutely unacceptable in this whole matter. As long as you start believing that any disagreement with your theory is wrong, you turn from theory to religion. An honest scientist should always keep their mind open for new ideas, including those contradicting their existing preconceptions. I'm not going into the details of the theory itself, I'm just strongly disagreeing with the way AGCC followers do not accept any criticism of their claims.

Science works like this:
1) You make a claim.
2) Someone disagrees with you.
3) You ask what the point of disagreement is.
4) They explain.
5) You address this point.

Or:
1) You make a claim.
2) Someone asks you to clarify how you came to this conclusion.
3) You explain.
4) They criticize your explanation.
5) You criticize their criticism of your explanation.

It doesn't work like this:
1) You make a claim.
2) I disagree.
3) You call me a denier that doesn't have any evidence to back up my disagreement and move on.
Religion works like this. Politics sometimes works like this. But it is not science.


No, I would just shrug and move on with my day.

I've read the research. I've gone over the data. I've gone through the science. Endus does the leg work and actually provides it directly here. There is no belief system like religion. There is no faith in the answer. You can tell when someone has a scientific mind because they stop worrying about the delivery method and the feels they get from it and they care more about whether they are right or wrong backed by fact. A scientific mind will stop and 180 on a dime if proof exists to support it. I just say "you're wrong" without support because I don't want to do your job of researching the topic. Endus does that job for you......I'm not of his ilk lol. The evidence is there. It's up to you to get it.

Scientists have their minds open. I have an open mind. They are constantly looking for the most correct answer. The problem with your pov is that no one has provided research or factual evidence to cause scientists to question man made climate change.

Saying "I don't like how your conclusions make me feel, and you should question them and be open!" is absolutely ridiculous. We got to where we are today by doing exactly that......questioning the results and tackling the problem from 10000000 different ways....when everyone that goes out looking for an answer comes back with the same conclusion, an open mind goes with that answer.

The problem with your flow chart here is that you think we are still in the proving process of climate change. We are WAY beyond that. We are on the last step of this process......getting the public up to speed. The work has been done. The proving is complete. The disconnect is when people like you come along and go WHOA WHOA WHOA you have to prove it first!

Science has proven it. You need to catch up and stop being stuck in the past. You view this as religious dismissal when it is just you being way behind the times. Catch up.

[Gheld]

"I am this smart because I posted this meme."

Because there's a chance it can save just ONE baby.

[Kretan]

Are you 100% sure, without any doubt, that humans are the cause?

Yup. There is enough evidence to prove it.

[Thepersona]

wait, wasnt this settled?
the thing that really concerns me is the 3% that doesnt agree...

[Kalador]

Science works like this:
1) You make a claim.
2) Someone disagrees with you.
3) You ask what the point of disagreement is.
4) They explain.
5) You address this point.

Or:
1) You make a claim.
2) Someone asks you to clarify how you came to this conclusion.
3) You explain.
4) They criticize your explanation.
5) You criticize their criticism of your explanation.

it does not work like that.

First you don't start by making a claim.

-ask a question
-gather any information on it
-make an hypothesis
-test it
-tchek the data
-fromulate a new hypothesis based on data
-publish
-other scientise repeat to tchek if its working or not (if it does not explaine way and make a new hypothesis)

and guess what, that's what as been done for climat change for the past 30 years... and the hypothesis that climate change is happening and that human cause it still holds

[May90]

I've read the research. I've gone over the data. I've gone through the science. Endus does the leg work and actually provides it directly here. There is no belief system like religion. There is no faith in the answer. You can tell when someone has a scientific mind because they stop worrying about the delivery method and the feels they get from it and they care more about whether they are right or wrong backed by fact. A scientific mind will stop and 180 on a dime if proof exists to support it.

Scientists have their minds open. I have an open mind. They are constantly looking for the most correct answer. The problem with your pov is that no one has provided research or factual evidence to cause scientists to question man made climate change.

Saying "I don't like how your conclusions make me feel, and you should question them and be open!" is absolutely ridiculous. We got to where we are today by doing exactly that......questioning the results and tackling the problem from 10000000 different ways....when everyone that goes out looking for an answer comes back with the same conclusion, an open mind goes with that answer.

The problem with your flow chart here is that you think we are still in the proving process of climate change. We are WAY beyond that. We are on the last step of this process......getting the public up to speed. The work has been done. The proving is complete. The disconnect is when people like you come along and go WHOA WHOA WHOA you have to prove it first!

Science has proven it. You need to catch up and stop being stuck in the past. You view this as religious dismissal when it is just you being way behind the times. Catch up.

I went through the data as well and found, what I call, a lot of "circular references": a paper referencing a paper referencing a paper referencing the original paper, with no original source existing. But, like I said, criticizing the theory itself is not my point here.

I am not a climatologist. I work in particle physics. So, when people from other scientific fields want me to accept their theory, they should be able to deliver it in such a way that I can follow through their logical reasoning and agree with the result. This hasn't been done. When I read a paper on, say, history of Incs, I can follow through their line of reasoning and understand how they came to a certain conclusion - even though I am no historian. When I read a paper which claims that a certain kind of spiders engages in predatory behavior on their children, I can understand their line of reasoning and the conclusion. With AGCC, I haven't seen a paper yet which would make much sense scientifically; a lot of general popularizing papers making some general narrative, very little to the point. Someone linking me a 500 pages long report and expecting me to read through it - as you understand, I'm not going to do it. A well developed theory should be able to be summarized briefly and scientifically logical. If I want to understand why most scientists claim that there is a black hole at the center of our Galaxy, I can find a lot of articles or book chapters which will explain it to me. They won't be saying, "Everyone disagreeing with us is a silly denier and their word is blasphemy", they will be explaining their reasoning, and I will be able to engage in a discussion with them, if I find their reasoning questionable, or if I want them to explain something further.

That's basically it. I've never claimed that AGCC is just plain "wrong". But scientists surely aren't making a very good case on trying to get people to think otherwise.

[neocount]

https://anotherslownewsday.wordpress...d-predictions/

[Gheld]

How about;

Human activities cause massive environmental damage, the least of which is a fluctuation in temperatures.

CO2 greenhouse effect anthropogenic global warming is just a feel good thing, wherein a bunch of bottled water drinking hipsters can take absolutely no responsibility for the environment around them as they continue to consume products made under environmentally destructive conditions, Eat food that requires a gigantic agricultural footprint (evapotranspiration from farm crops has a major localized influence on weather patterns, not to mention all of the polluted runoff from farms that fucks up entire water sheds).

People cling to the CO2 global warming thing because the ultimate message is: "It's not YOUR fault" and it allows them to point their finger at the corporate interests that they themselves are consuming from to begin with.

The fact is though on top of the initial environmental costs of building quarter mile high cities and bulldozing the entire great plains to grow crops is also the pollution generated while maintaining them as mother nature constantly struggles to reclaim the land from us.

What's ultimately killing the planet is the big gigantic scars we dredge into the ground so that we can move it over to a processing plant and turn it into concrete mix to replace other gigantic swaths of natural landscape with fucking parking lots. It doesn't matter if you are going to park a fucking electric car there. You know it. I know it.

And once again.. fucking bottled water. Really?

[neocount]

How about;

Human activities cause massive environmental damage, the least of which is a fluctuation in temperatures.

CO2 greenhouse effect anthropogenic global warming is just a feel good thing, wherein a bunch of bottled water drinking hipsters can take absolutely no responsibility for the environment around them as they continue to consume products made under environmentally destructive conditions, Eat food that requires a gigantic agricultural footprint (evapotranspiration from farm crops has a major localized influence on weather patterns, not to mention all of the poluted runoff from farms that fucks up entire water sheds).

People cling to the CO2 global warming thing because the ultimate message is: "It's not YOUR fault" and it allows them to point their finger at the corporate interests that they themselves are consuming from to begin with.

The fact is though on top of the initial environmental costs of building quarter mile high cities and bulldozing the entire great plains to grow crops is also the pollution generated while maintaining them as mother nature constantly struggles to reclaim the land from us.

What's ultimately killing the planet is the big gigantic scars we dredge into the ground so that we can move it over to a processing plant and turn it into concrete mix to replace other gigantic swaths of natural landscape with fucking parking lots. It doesn't matter if you are going to park a fucking electric car there. You know it. I know it.

And once again.. fucking bottled water. Really?

Finally, some honesty.

[dethmourne]

3% of scientists not actually scientists.

[Revi]

It's not denial as no proof has ever been provided. Con artist studies and bad statistics don't make something a scientific fact

I think you mean "I'm in denial of all the proof that has ever been provided".

[Garnier Fructis]

This is old news.

But this thread is fucking depressing.

[Orbitus]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...a-real-survey/



Thats 1854 out of how many?

There are lies, there are damned lies and there the kind of idiotic statistics that claim that 98% of people believe something when they interview 100 people out of 23 million



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay.../#4b9d0dd35909



AGW is panic mongering alarmist garbage.

You used a BLOG and an OPINION page to refute scientists? Are you fucking high?

[Gheld]

I think you mean "I'm in denial of all the proof that has ever been provided".

Using the word proof like that proves that you don't understand the scientific method and you are being just as zealotous as somebody who "denies" it just because Rush Limbaugh does.

[iceberg265]

So this means 3% got it right? Climate change has been happening for a very, very long time. And with or without mankind, it would continue to do so.

Clearly you know better than the scientific community. Please enlighten us all with your plethora of evidence.

[Gheld]

You used a BLOG and an OPINION page to refute scientists? Are you fucking high?

Again, more zealotous behaviour. You're commiting like a thousand logical fallacies here. But as long as it supports the SJW narrative it's okay right?

[Kretan]

I went through the data as well and found, what I call, a lot of "circular references": a paper referencing a paper referencing a paper referencing the original paper, with no original source existing. But, like I said, criticizing the theory itself is not my point here.

I am not a climatologist. I work in particle physics. So, when people from other scientific fields want me to accept their theory, they should be able to deliver it in such a way that I can follow through their logical reasoning and agree with the result. This hasn't been done. When I read a paper on, say, history of Incs, I can follow through their line of reasoning and understand how they came to a certain conclusion - even though I am no historian. When I read a paper which claims that a certain kind of spiders engages in predatory behavior on their children, I can understand their line of reasoning and the conclusion. With AGCC, I haven't seen a paper yet which would make much sense scientifically; a lot of general popularizing papers making some general narrative, very little to the point. Someone linking me a 500 pages long report and expecting me to read through it - as you understand, I'm not going to do it. A well developed theory should be able to be summarized briefly and scientifically logical. If I want to understand why most scientists claim that there is a black hole at the center of our Galaxy, I can find a lot of articles or book chapters which will explain it to me. They won't be saying, "Everyone disagreeing with us is a silly denier and their word is blasphemy", they will be explaining their reasoning, and I will be able to engage in a discussion with them, if I find their reasoning questionable, or if I want them to explain something further.

That's basically it. I've never claimed that AGCC is just plain "wrong". But scientists surely aren't making a very good case on trying to get people to think otherwise.

No that's more along the lines of willful denial/just not reading papers if you think climate change is a circular reference. I don't think you are very scientifically driven to be honest if you believe this circular reference idea lol. 100% sure you came up with that on the spot about 5 minutes ago.

Just because you can't follow a simple idea/papers doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

Just saying youre in to particle physics doesn't mean anything. I'm in to basketball, but I can't dunk.