• Does anyone know the actual number of scientists that believe in man-made global warming?

    The only thing I can find is that 97 percent or so of Climate scientists believe it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/15/research-shows-yet-again-that-theres-no-scientific-debate-about-climate-change/?utm_term=.4504c775854a But how many is 97 percent? And it would also be nice to... show more
    The only thing I can find is that 97 percent or so of Climate scientists believe it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ener... But how many is 97 percent? And it would also be nice to know how many scientists of ANY discipline believe in man made global warming. The reason that would be nice to know is that deniers keep pointing out that 31000 plus scientists have signed a petition saying there is inadequate proof for global warming. But only 12 percent of those scientists have anything at all to do with climate! That s what they DON T tell you. http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-r...
    21 answers · Global Warming · 19 hours ago
  • Is there really a 97 percent scientific consensus on global warming?

    Best answer: Originally it was "..... of peer review papers". It was re-termed by liberal media for propaganda purposes. How many government scientists wud there have to be ( in order to reach 97%) to counter the thousands who disagree with government dogma? Go to Heartland to find many of them. U wont see or hear... show more
    Best answer: Originally it was "..... of peer review papers".

    It was re-termed by liberal media for propaganda purposes.

    How many government scientists wud there have to be ( in order to reach 97%) to counter the thousands who disagree with government dogma?

    Go to Heartland to find many of them. U wont see or hear from them on TV. THAT has already been announced.
    25 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • Why is there still denial on Climate Change and why has the debate suddenly become about whether the evidence is human caused or not?

    Why is there still denial on Climate Change and why has the debate suddenly become about whether the evidence is human caused or not?

    Best answer: As the mountain of evidence that climate change is happening is becoming more numerous and rock solid: A) You can t be taken seriously if you flat out deny it, because its clear at very minimum something is happening. B) Denialists must see this, and try to change to invoke confusion in the issue of human caused... show more
    Best answer: As the mountain of evidence that climate change is happening is becoming more numerous and rock solid:

    A) You can t be taken seriously if you flat out deny it, because its clear at very minimum something is happening.
    B) Denialists must see this, and try to change to invoke confusion in the issue of human caused climate change.

    Denialism exists for many reasons. Understand, People seem to struggle with many concepts, such as dealing with issues today so you don t have to tomorrow, things that are more complicated than 2+2, things can *gasp* actually be their fault, and even long term issues with relatively slow changes.
    -Its also much easier to plug you ears and close your eyes than actually understand complicated things.

    It matters if it is human caused for many reasons. If its human caused, that means we can stop it and many of the effects we will cause for future generations. Even if not human caused, we can look at why the climate is changing and figure out how humans can best adapt to the changing world.

    Think about how stupid the average person is... and that a lot of people are stupider than that.
    18 answers · Global Warming · 3 days ago
  • Has Global Warming been blown out of proportion.?

    Throughout the earths history there have been periods of heating and cooling, even ice ages. I think man should adapt to it and not panic and spend loads of money on it. What do you think?.
    Throughout the earths history there have been periods of heating and cooling, even ice ages. I think man should adapt to it and not panic and spend loads of money on it. What do you think?.
    15 answers · Global Warming · 1 day ago
  • Is there really a 97 percent scientific consensus on global warming?

    Best answer: Among climate scientists in particular, I believe that in excess of 90% believe global warming is being caused by humans and it's a serious problem. Whether it's 93% or 97% or 99% I don't really know or care. That would depend on precisely how the question was asked. I think the takeaway should be... show more
    Best answer: Among climate scientists in particular, I believe that in excess of 90% believe global warming is being caused by humans and it's a serious problem. Whether it's 93% or 97% or 99% I don't really know or care. That would depend on precisely how the question was asked.

    I think the takeaway should be that there is a large majority who believe it is a problem and something should be done about it. Anyone that believes that climate scientists are largely split or believe that it's still a matter of active debate among them probably has spent very little (if any) time among actual climate scientists.
    26 answers · Global Warming · 3 days ago
  • Global warming argument help?

    So my dad brought up a global warming topic. He is a closed minded conservative and is very anti-climate change. I am an aspiring member of the scientific community and am pissed about this. I know a significant amount about the topic, more than an someone my age normally would. I simply have trouble debating this... show more
    So my dad brought up a global warming topic. He is a closed minded conservative and is very anti-climate change. I am an aspiring member of the scientific community and am pissed about this. I know a significant amount about the topic, more than an someone my age normally would. I simply have trouble debating this with him and getting my point across. He often comes up with arguments like "It's all cyclical" or "Reports from the 70s show the earth is getting colder." I just don't know how to reason with him. I could use some rebuttals, especially for the two above.
    11 answers · Global Warming · 14 hours ago
  • The first Earth Day in 1970 said, ‘The science is settled: the Earth is getting colder.’ And the government said, ‘Give us your money..?

    Best answer: Yes follow the money.
    The IPCC third assessment report said long-term prediction of future climate state is not possible.
    Best answer: Yes follow the money.
    The IPCC third assessment report said long-term prediction of future climate state is not possible.
    13 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • Is climate change real or not?

    Best answer: Absolutely real. They have evidence taken out of ancient glacier ice that climate change is cyclical and dates as far back as the ice evidence goes, which I recall as being over 200,000 years. Check this out: "Glaciers and climate change Glacial ice can range in age from several hundred to several hundreds... show more
    Best answer: Absolutely real. They have evidence taken out of ancient glacier ice that climate change is cyclical and dates as far back as the ice evidence goes, which I recall as being over 200,000 years. Check this out:

    "Glaciers and climate change
    Glacial ice can range in age from several hundred to several hundreds of thousands years, making it valuable for climate research. To see a long-term climate record, scientists can drill and extract ice cores from glaciers and ice sheets. Ice cores have been taken from around the world, including Peru, Canada, Greenland, Antarctica, Europe, and Asia. These cores are continuous records providing scientists with year-by-year information about past climate. Scientists analyze various components of cores, particularly trapped air bubbles, which reveal past atmospheric composition, temperature variations, and types of vegetation. Glaciers preserve bits of atmosphere from thousands of years ago in these tiny air bubbles, or, deeper within the core, trapped within the ice itself. This is one way scientists know that there have been several Ice Ages. Past eras can be reconstructed, showing how and why climate changed, and how it might change in the future." [https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/climate.html]

    For example, mankind could once walk across what is now the Bearing Strait between Russia and Alaska. The ocean level was that low so there was a land bridge where there is now water. Where was all the water? Locked up in glaciers and sheet ice.

    And now the oceans are filling up again. And they have been for millennia as the globe warms up naturally. But here's the deal...

    The extent and rate of warming and ocean filling are way greater and faster than ever before...back that 200,000 years we have evidence of. So while it's natural to be warming now, it's not...not...natural to be warming as fast and as much as it is. The extreme extent and rate are attributable to mankind's pouring toxic and noxious gases into the air by their petrol burning cars, their coal burning power plants, and all those other methods for burning fossil fuels.
    11 answers · Global Warming · 22 hours ago
  • Who knows more about science? Conservatives or liberals?

    Best answer: I'm not sure either political persuasion does. Most people I meet outside scientific circles don't seem particularly knowledgeable about science, although there are exceptions. Even people inside science may have their own specialized knowledge and not be aware of other sciences. I remember talking with a... show more
    Best answer: I'm not sure either political persuasion does. Most people I meet outside scientific circles don't seem particularly knowledgeable about science, although there are exceptions. Even people inside science may have their own specialized knowledge and not be aware of other sciences. I remember talking with a theoretical physicist one time, and showing him a large quartz crystal that I had found. He said to me "Why did you cut it like that?" Of course I hadn't cut it at all--nature had made it that way! I was very surprised that someone with as much scientific knowledge as he had wouldn't have understood that.

    Personally, I've studied a LOT of science in my lifetime, but it's almost entirely been physical science, so although CRISPR/Cas9 may be the hottest thing in molecular biology, I don't really know a thing about it. Nor do I know how the human organs work, or I have only a very hazy memory of insect orders. I do at least realize that I don't know much about those things, and if I needed to know I could research them. The real problems come about when you think you know things that you don't.

    Generally, if haven't studied something, you should assume that you don't know much about it. While that should be obvious, I think there are many people that operate on an entirely different set of assumptions.

    As for political leaning, I grew up in a conservative family and was probably considered a conservative in high school. In college and grad school I realized I was socially liberal and found that the libertarian ideas of fiscal conservatism combined with being socially liberal were attractive, so I considered myself libertarian for decades. Over the past couple of decades it has become clear that libertarianism (especially in its more extreme forms) had serious problems--especially with the people that advocated it. The financial meltdown exposed many of its economic deficiencies. Now I guess I qualify as a liberal, although I don't particularly identify with the Democratic Party.

    So even though my political beliefs have evolved over the years, my belief in science has never wavered, and if it comes down to a conflict between my political beliefs and science, science wins every time. When I was in the march on Saturday, one of my favorite signs was "You can't repeal physics". Physical laws always have precedence over the laws of man.
    27 answers · Global Warming · 3 days ago
  • Is the World Bank correct that investing $40 trillion in renewable energy is a good way for governments to make money?

    Renewable energy tends to make money from subsidies provided by governments. So now government would be subsidizing their own investments. http://www.afr.com/business/energy/solar...
    Renewable energy tends to make money from subsidies provided by governments. So now government would be subsidizing their own investments. http://www.afr.com/business/energy/solar...
    12 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • India will not be meeting its commitments under the Paris Accord. Is anyone surprised?

    India's emissions alone will be higher than the safe level declared by scientists for stopping global warming. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/25/i...
    India's emissions alone will be higher than the safe level declared by scientists for stopping global warming. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/25/i...
    11 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • Did the Obama Administration lie about global warming to try and trick the public?

    Putting out press releases with the scare story of the week. http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/former...
    Putting out press releases with the scare story of the week. http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/former...
    10 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago