BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 177 Pages +
  • « First
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Climate change a different take on what to do about it.

#1121 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,676
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2013-May-11, 10:13

Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm

Quote

The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years. That's how far back scientists have been able to measure CO2 directly in bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice cores.

But tens of millions of years ago, CO2 must have been much higher than it is now—there's no other way to explain how warm the Earth was then. In the Eocene, some 50 million years ago, there were alligators and tapirs on Ellesmere Island, which lies off northern Greenland in the Canadian Arctic. They were living in swampy forests like those in the southeastern United States today. CO2 may have been anywhere from two to ten times higher in the Eocene than it is today. (See related: "Hothouse Earth.")

Over the next 45 million years, most of it was converted to marine limestone, as CO2-laden rains dissolved the ingredients of limestone out of rocks on land and washed them down rivers to the sea. CO2-belching volcanoes failed to keep pace, so the atmospheric level of the gas slowly declined. Some time during the Pliocene, it probably crossed the 400 ppm mark, as it's doing now-but back then it was on its way down. As a result, at the end of the Pliocene, it became cold enough for continental ice sheets to start forming in the northern hemisphere. The Pliocene, says geologist Maureen Raymo of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, "was the last gasp of warmth before the slow slide into the Ice Ages."

What was Earth like then? In Africa, grasslands were replacing forests and our ancestors were climbing down from the trees. (See related: "The Evolutionary Road.") On Ellesmere, there were no longer alligators and cypress trees, but there were beavers and larch trees and horses and giant camels—and not much ice. The planet was three to four degrees Celsius warmer than it was in the 19th century, before man-made global warming began.

If anything, those numbers understate how different the Pliocene climate was. The tropical sea surface was about as warm as it is now, says Alexey Fedorov of Yale University, but the temperature gradient between the tropics and the poles—which drives the jet streams in the mid-latitudes—was much smaller. The east-west gradient across the Pacific Ocean—which drives the El Niño-La Niña oscillation—was almost nonexistent. In effect, the ocean was locked in a permanent El Niño. Global weather patterns would have been completely different in the Pliocene.

And yet the two main drivers of climate—the level of CO2, and the parameters of Earth's orbit, which determine how much sunlight falls where and at what season—were essentially the same as today. Fedorov calls it the Pliocene Paradox.

Climate scientists are just beginning to crack it, he says. Maybe clouds outside the tropics were darker in the Pliocene, such that they bounced less sunlight back to space. Maybe the warm ocean was stirred by a lot more hurricanes.

Hanging over this academic research is a very nonacademic issue: Could our climate be capable of flipping to a completely different state? "That's the big question—whether CO2 can move us to the Pliocene," says Fedorov.

Conservatives do not want to take that risk, even if most of the damage will be born by future generations.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#1122 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-May-11, 10:23

View PostPassedOut, on 2013-May-11, 09:54, said:

You can always find someone to take a given position. Some even maintained that the 9/11 attacks were a US government conspiracy (if the shoe fits, wear it). That doesn't mean that every notion merits coverage.

News organizations have differing standards for credibility.

Yes, and many just regurgitate what is fed to them without analysis or critique.

Not being swayed by appeals to authority and the lure of consensus will ensure that our grandkids have a better result that what we have to deal with.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#1123 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,281
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2013-May-11, 10:50

View PostAl_U_Card, on 2013-May-11, 09:29, said:

Cui bono :ph34r:


In other words, if you agree with the findings it is sound but if you disagree the author must have had a hidden agenda? Sounds reasonable. ;)
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#1124 User is offline   Daniel1960 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 439
  • Joined: 2011-December-05

Posted 2013-May-11, 13:27

View PostWinstonm, on 2013-May-11, 10:50, said:

In other words, if you agree with the findings it is sound but if you disagree the author must have had a hidden agenda? Sounds reasonable. ;)


I find this statment more true than I care to admit. Too many people with which I have argued use the statement, "so and so cannot be trusted because he is a ____" (fill in the blank with whatever fits the current topic).
0

#1125 User is offline   Cascade 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 6,765
  • Joined: 2003-July-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Juggling, Unicycling

Posted 2013-May-11, 14:32

View PostWinstonm, on 2013-May-09, 14:03, said:

I am still unclear as to what you are after. No one - not a single person - claims that AGW is a 100% ironclad fact. AGW simply has a high degree of confidence from 90% of the world's climate scientists. The facts build a strong circumstantial case in support of that position.


And this is the settled science?

If you really believe that then surely you would be keen for scientists to explore the possibility that the theory is incorrect.
Wayne Burrows

I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon

#1126 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,281
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2013-May-11, 15:59

View PostCascade, on 2013-May-11, 14:32, said:

And this is the settled science?

If you really believe that then surely you would be keen for scientists to explore the possibility that the theory is incorrect.



Huh? What exactly is "settled science"?

I have no problem with genuine scientific skepticism - but what we have mostly is non-scientific disingenuous skepticism. What part do you not like? Is it the fact that the earth has warmed? Is it the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is it the fact that humans have been contributing excesses of CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution?

Or do you simply not like the conclusion formed from that data set?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#1127 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-May-12, 06:45

View PostPassedOut, on 2013-May-11, 10:13, said:

Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm


Conservatives do not want to take that risk, even if most of the damage will be born by future generations.

But tens of millions of years ago, CO2 must have been much higher than it is now—there's no other way to explain how warm the Earth was then.

Exactly the type of statement that exemplifies the Climatescience approach to modelling. Since the experimental evidence doesn't support the calculations, jack-up the water-vapor interaction to create alarm.

Getting the result that they want is what it is all about.

Reality? Secondary, at best.

Politics and advocacy are like that. Science is not supposed to be... :ph34r:
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#1128 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,281
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2013-May-12, 08:15

View PostAl_U_Card, on 2013-May-12, 06:45, said:

But tens of millions of years ago, CO2 must have been much higher than it is now—there's no other way to explain how warm the Earth was then.

Exactly the type of statement that exemplifies the Climatescience approach to modelling. Since the experimental evidence doesn't support the calculations, jack-up the water-vapor interaction to create alarm.

Getting the result that they want is what it is all about.

Reality? Secondary, at best.

Politics and advocacy are like that. Science is not supposed to be... :ph34r:



Clarification?
1) experimental evidence doesn't support the calculations - what experimental evidence from tens of millions of years ago?

Quote

Kiehl drew on recently published research that, by analyzing molecular structures in fossilized organic materials, showed that carbon dioxide levels likely reached 900 to 1,000 parts per million about 35 million years ago.


Do you dispute the analysis? Was this molecular structure faked or simply misunderstood? What is your explanation?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#1129 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-May-12, 10:20

The PAGES2K "reconstruction" paper is the latest in a long line of bogus CAGW efforts by the alarmist advocates.

It exemplifies the tendency of climatescience to do just about anything to get MSM press or IPCC admission based on whatever analysis and review they can get "through" in time. (Notwithstanding the ability to ignore or distort actual scientific uncertainty to create the impression for policy-makers that it is "worse than we thought" and consensus-of-certainty.

It is discouraging, to say the least, that journals like Science and Nature allow such shenanigans (and even promote it...) by creating things like "Progress" articles to get shoddy science into the record in time for AR5 deadlines. Climate science is “a developing field that might not yet be mature enough for review”???? Has that stopped them in the past?

Such is the nature of that beast that I now refuse to accept anything that promotes alarmism or "unprecedented" results, at least as far as climate research goes.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#1130 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,281
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2013-May-12, 11:13

View PostAl_U_Card, on 2013-May-12, 10:20, said:

The PAGES2K "reconstruction" paper is the latest in a long line of bogus CAGW efforts by the alarmist advocates.

It exemplifies the tendency of climatescience to do just about anything to get MSM press or IPCC admission based on whatever analysis and review they can get "through" in time. (Notwithstanding the ability to ignore or distort actual scientific uncertainty to create the impression for policy-makers that it is "worse than we thought" and consensus-of-certainty.

It is discouraging, to say the least, that journals like Science and Nature allow such shenanigans (and even promote it...) by creating things like "Progress" articles to get shoddy science into the record in time for AR5 deadlines. Climate science is “a developing field that might not yet be mature enough for review”???? Has that stopped them in the past?

Such is the nature of that beast that I now refuse to accept anything that promotes alarmism or "unprecedented" results, at least as far as climate research goes.


You did not answer the questions. You asserted that conclusions were false that early earth had higher CO2 concentrations. What is your basis for denying that the molecular composition of fossilized organic materials shows the earth had higher CO2 levels 35 million years ago?

This is not "alarmist" data nor is it "unprecedented". Again, what specifically is your dispute? Are you claiming the data was faked? How does this information (molecular composition of fossilized organic materials) fit your claim that "the experimental evidence doesn't support the calculations..."?

It appears to me that the data supports the conclusion. Yet you claim a falsehood. Where is that falsehood?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#1131 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-May-12, 12:02

Au contraire.

I refuse to accept ANY climate-related conclusions without having the time and means to analyze and verify them. Your quoted study as well, no matter what its conclusion(s).

The simple fact is that there is so much wrong with climatescience studies that indicate any kind of alarmist conclusions that my approach has become necessary (for me, specifically). If it hinders debate then so be it. Settled science indeed. Should I get around to vetting this particular one, I'll get back to you but don't hold your breath.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#1132 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,281
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2013-May-12, 12:13

View PostAl_U_Card, on 2013-May-12, 12:02, said:

Au contraire.

I refuse to accept ANY climate-related conclusions without having the time and means to analyze and verify them. Your quoted study as well, no matter what its conclusion(s).

The simple fact is that there is so much wrong with climatescience studies that indicate any kind of alarmist consclusions that my approach has become necessary (for me, specifically). If it hinders debate then so be it. Settled science indeed. Should I get around to vetting this particular one, I'll get back to you but don't hold your breath.


So, you refuse to accept the conclusion that "analyzing molecular structures in fossilized organic materials...showed that carbon dioxide levels likely reached 900 to 1,000 parts per million about 35 million years ago" because you don't have the time or means to verify it?

Isn't that basically an admission that you simply shill for the anti-AGW, irrespective of evidence?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
2

#1133 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,693
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2013-May-12, 14:36

I don't think he's admitting that at all, or even implying it. I suspect he would equally refuse to accept a study that came to the opposite conclusion until he had vetted it.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
1

#1134 User is offline   Cascade 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 6,765
  • Joined: 2003-July-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Juggling, Unicycling

Posted 2013-May-12, 15:07

View PostWinstonm, on 2013-May-11, 15:59, said:

Huh? What exactly is "settled science"?

I have no problem with genuine scientific skepticism - but what we have mostly is non-scientific disingenuous skepticism. What part do you not like? Is it the fact that the earth has warmed? Is it the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is it the fact that humans have been contributing excesses of CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution?

Or do you simply not like the conclusion formed from that data set?


"Settled science" is the cry of the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The part I object to is:

1. being told that this matter is settled

2. being given misleading graphs supporting that statement regarding the number of scientific papers that dispute global warming

3. that it is or has been difficult to find the raw data

4. that the raw data has been manipulated to fit or make models

5. that data has been extropolated from a relatively few measurements to global (or regional conclusions

for example in one recent paper, I forget the author and unfortunately dont have the time to look it up now, the author reported on recalibrating a thermometer from one temperature record in Antartica and then drew conclusions about the entire sub-continent of West Antartica

6. that almost any natural catastrophic climate event is attributed to Climate Change without any or only tenuous causality links

7. that Climate Scientists will often not debate issues with those with a sceptical view

8. that more sceptical views are uninvited to global meetings on Climate Change

...

I am sure I could go on.

I am completely unconvinced by these actions that what is promulgated by so-called climate scientists and their political cohorts is a fair and reasonable representation of reality.
Wayne Burrows

I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon

#1135 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,281
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2013-May-12, 17:44

View Postblackshoe, on 2013-May-12, 14:36, said:

I don't think he's admitting that at all, or even implying it. I suspect he would equally refuse to accept a study that came to the opposite conclusion until he had vetted it.


I guess you haven't noticed all the misleading and cherry-picked graphs and such he has posted. Others have noticed.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#1136 User is offline   Daniel1960 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 439
  • Joined: 2011-December-05

Posted 2013-May-12, 20:35

View PostWinstonm, on 2013-May-11, 15:59, said:

Huh? What exactly is "settled science"?

I have no problem with genuine scientific skepticism - but what we have mostly is non-scientific disingenuous skepticism. What part do you not like? Is it the fact that the earth has warmed? Is it the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is it the fact that humans have been contributing excesses of CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution?

Or do you simply not like the conclusion formed from that data set?


Actually most appears to be genuine scientific skepticism - although I will admit that there are those who have contirbuted to what you call non-scientific disingenous skepticism (going back to my original post concerning both extremes). I have no dispute with your facts, and I suspects very few (if any) scientists would either. However, the observed warming is greater than that experimentally predicted from the excess CO2. The jump from these facts to statements that claim that the additional CO2 will warm the planet excessively due to a series of positive feedbacks is tenuous, at best. That is the conclusion that cannot be made from the data set. To be fair, it cannot be disproven either.
0

#1137 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-May-12, 20:51

View PostWinstonm, on 2013-May-12, 17:44, said:

I guess you haven't noticed all the misleading and cherry-picked graphs and such he has posted. Others have noticed.


Hmmmn. Like grafting thermometer records to proxy results? (A climatescience special.)
Or placing trendlines on modern temperatures to imply an increasing rate of warming? (From the IPCC itself.)
Like any hockey stick graph that relies on one lone tree for the modern effect? (Yamal tree-ring in MBH'98)
Like using proxies upside-down so that they "agree" with modern warming? (Tiljander sediments among many others.)
Like pre-selecting proxies that produce the desired effect and discarding those that don't? (Or even when they don't but include them when they do...) (The Gergis paper that was withdrawn yet whose proxies made it into PAGES2K)

Those ones? Certainly some have noticed for sure. This is why the whole CO2 scam is losing traction with governments AND tax-payers.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#1138 User is offline   Daniel1960 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 439
  • Joined: 2011-December-05

Posted 2013-May-13, 09:05

View PostCascade, on 2013-May-11, 14:32, said:

And this is the settled science?

If you really believe that then surely you would be keen for scientists to explore the possibility that the theory is incorrect.


Very little science is actually settled, although there are some scientific laws that come very close. There are several theories attempting to explain the recent warming of the Earth. None can explain all the temperature changes, and in all likelihood, parts of each will contribute to the whole. Many scientists are blaming the current "warming hiatus" on the predicted grand solar minimum (Landscheidt minimum). Using this as an excuse, without understanding astrophysics, seems rather foolhardy. For those who are unaware of this prinicple, see the following for a brief overview.

http://www.landschei...nfo/?q=node/218
0

#1139 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,676
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2013-May-13, 13:31

A Change in Temperature

Quote

What’s new is that several recent papers have offered best estimates for climate sensitivity that are below four degrees Fahrenheit, rather than the previous best estimate of just above five degrees, and they have also suggested that the highest estimates are pretty implausible.

Notice that these recent calculations fall well within the long-accepted range — just on the lower end of it. But the papers have caused considerable excitement among climate-change contrarians.

It is not that they actually agree with the new numbers, mind you. They have long pushed implausibly low estimates of climate sensitivity, below two degrees Fahrenheit in some cases. But they appear to be calculating that any paper with a lowball number is a step in their direction.

James Annan, a mainstream climate scientist working at a Japanese institute, offers a best estimate of four and a half degrees Fahrenheit. When he wrote recently that he thought some of the highest temperature projections could be rejected, skeptics could not contain their enthusiasm.

“That is what we call a landmark change of course — by one of climatology’s most renowned warmist scientists,” declared a blogger named Pierre L. Gosselin. “If even Annan can see it, then the writing is truly emblazoned on the wall.”

But does this sort of claim — that we can all breathe a sigh of relief about climate change — really hold up?

Dr. Annan said in an e-mail that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a mainstream body that periodically summarizes climate science, should be bolder about ruling out extreme temperature scenarios, but he still believes global warming is a sufficient threat to warrant changes in human behavior.

He noted that climate skeptics “are desperate to claim that the I.P.C.C. is being unreasonably alarmist, but on the other hand they don’t really want to agree with me either, because my views are close enough to the mainstream as to be unacceptable to them.” He added that he finds it “amusing to watch their gyrations as they try to square the circle.”

In a way, it's not surprising that you can find folks who don't accept the plain truth: that our pumping billions of tons of excess heat-trapping CO2 into the atmosphere each year actually traps much extra heat. Not everyone lives in a reality-based world. As we know, many in the US still reject the reality of evolution in the face of even more incontrovertible evidence.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#1140 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,281
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2013-May-13, 15:29

View PostCascade, on 2013-May-12, 15:07, said:

"Settled science" is the cry of the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The part I object to is:

1. being told that this matter is settled

2. being given misleading graphs supporting that statement regarding the number of scientific papers that dispute global warming

3. that it is or has been difficult to find the raw data

4. that the raw data has been manipulated to fit or make models

5. that data has been extropolated from a relatively few measurements to global (or regional conclusions

for example in one recent paper, I forget the author and unfortunately dont have the time to look it up now, the author reported on recalibrating a thermometer from one temperature record in Antartica and then drew conclusions about the entire sub-continent of West Antartica

6. that almost any natural catastrophic climate event is attributed to Climate Change without any or only tenuous causality links

7. that Climate Scientists will often not debate issues with those with a sceptical view

8. that more sceptical views are uninvited to global meetings on Climate Change

...

I am sure I could go on.

I am completely unconvinced by these actions that what is promulgated by so-called climate scientists and their political cohorts is a fair and reasonable representation of reality.


Once again you have failed to explain what you understand "settled science" to mean. Science does not deal with guarantees. The science reports: there is a 90% chance that most of the global warming seen in the past century was caused by human actions.

Here is an article about a CNN poll concerning AGW.

Quote

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role
.


At what point does the science become settled - 100%? There are still some people who refuse to believe that the U.S. actually landed on the moon. Does that make the moon landing a non-settled issue?

Have you asked yourself what type evidence you require?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

  • 177 Pages +
  • « First
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

6 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users