A quick search on line will throw up statstics that "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. "
Ok, anyone can cut and paste from Wikipedia, but it takes more effort than just sniping and asking people to justify themselves without at least looking first. Some people are happy in their own ignorance, others seem almost proud of it.
@tiger
Proud of it and get elected president of the USA ;-(
Geezer from the Breitbart department has arrived
@tigertigert: I asked for a source for "More than 95% of the world's climate scientists agree that human activity is causing climate change."
You came up with "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. "
Do you see the difference?
I did find this: "Survey of 1800 scientists: The ‘97% consensus’ is now 43% – ‘Less than half of climate scientists agree with UN IPCC ‘95%’ certainty’"
And: "The IPCC AR5 Statement:
“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. —
Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I."
95%+ cause of AGW is not the same as 95% of climate scientists having the opinion that global warming is caused by AGW.
BTW, I have read these studies, and many more, online so I did not merely "snipe." But, if you can't understand 95% CAUSE and 95% OPINION then, as you say, some people are happy in their own ignorance, others seem almost proud of it. However, others are merely ignorant.
A film: The Great Global Warming Swindle
As I said Geezer is back with his mathematical bla bla and things he has to proof referring to conspiracy theory websites like joannenova.com and stuff he found on youtube.
Initially, an allegedly general consensus of scientists created the "global warming" alarm. Several years and a billion dollars more research, they discovered that certain areas were experiencing significantly lower temperatures a la Kunming's cold snap, that murdered a lot of our trees, so the alleged group of scientists then changed their story from "global warming" to "climate change".
Do the irresponsible environmental activities of humankind affect climate, of course. But so do erupting volcanoes, massive wildfires, and I have absolutely no idea about the impact of nuclear meltdowns, polar reversals (allegedly our poles reverse polarity every few thousand years). The south pole was allegedly quite green (according to the ZhengHe legends) a few thousand years ago.
The reason climate change is still controversial is we're never sure if the reports are self serving sensationalist decision-based data (data cherry picked to support a biased decision), or data-based decisions.
The moon is allegedly the same age as the earth - 27% the size of the earth (roughly), and yet looks like a comet and asteroid war zone - the earth is significantly larger - why doesn't the surface of the earth even remotely resemble that level of celestial body strikes?
Just lucky?
Obviously, I have way too much free time on my hands to ponder such oddities - the point being - our snapshot of time is a razor thin slice of the earth's history. To take a data sampling of that size and attribute or draw conclusions on climatic conditions is truly brave science and and incredible feat of scientific data extrapolation, similar to the astounding and monumental alleged "gay gene" discovery decades ago - an epic example of decision-based data, aka biasing data to support a pre-disposed pre-biased decision - which is still reverberating as alleged scientific fact, even today.
So - in my equally arrogant opinion - I don't really know what to believe, but I do believe that instead of being parasitic surface dwellers, I'd rather be or strive towards a para-sympathetic surface dweller, until some stochastically improbably event snuffs out life, yet again, and the earth recovers, yet again, with or without us.
@Lemon lover:
I know it is difficult stuff, mathematics, and even arithmetic can be puzzling, but it is what it is.
FOR THE RECORD:
1) I do not doubt climate change. 2) I do not doubt that humans may impact climate.
You may get infantile pleasure in ridiculing me but you miss the point. I am a skeptic who, in grad school, wrote a assigned paper on the business opportunities in the pending ice age (1978). I do not have proof of anything but I am willing to keep my eyes open and question the unquestionable.
BTW I can't remember the last time I looked at the Breitbart site. Certainly it was long before he died.
@michael2015:
"why doesn't the surface of the earth even remotely resemble that level of celestial body strikes?"
I think the moon has considerably less dense athmosphere, so things don't burn up and reduce there so much as they do en route to Earth's crust.
Also the moon does not
have water to speak off, or vegetation, so elements to corrode and flatten the surface are nowhere near those on Earth.
@Geezer
I agree; Breitbart is getting to mainstream nowadays. They even sit in the Whitehouse. Understand you are now busy reading Joannenova to have time for that.
@michael
“ZhengHe legends a few thousand years ago”
Amazing: ZhengHe knew that the South Pole was green already 500 years ago….. Or was this that a legend?
