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.
Why of course! This thread is arguing for the sake of arguing. Here's a real argument: why are most anthropogenic climate change deniers right wing Christians? Debate that one!
You linked to page that states 97%, 97% of what? What I'm asking you is using the references on that page how many scientists make up this 97%. For example they are going to cite the Doran study on that page, how many scientists are the 97% in the Doran study?
The Doran study was from 2009, it was "a survey of 3146 earth scientists that were asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
"97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes" in the Doran study.
"77% of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research answered yes" in the Doran study.
Mr. Peabody: Sherman, set the Wayback machine to 2000 AD:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
Exactly.
Now it's the opposite. And these idiot "intellectuals" wonder why we don't believe anything they say. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Never mind, I found it and it is tree ring data not temperature records....It says nothing about current temperatures....Nice try though.
Sanspeur if you are going understand climate 100 or 200 years is simply not enough data and if you are going to discount tree ring data then we can pretty much throw out any chart that goes beyond the mid 1800's.
Why of course! This thread is arguing for the sake of arguing. Here's a real argument: why are most anthropogenic climate change deniers right wing Christians? Debate that one!
More generalizations. First of all I don't believe that to be the case and me personally I'm non religious, fiscally conservative and moderate on the moral issues...
Sanspeur if you are going understand climate 100 or 200 years is simply not enough data and if you are going to discount tree ring data then we can pretty much throw out any chart that goes beyond the mid 1800's.
Not throwing it out, but it is far from an exact science....Dendrochronology is currently still in its scientific infancy – there are many problems in the use of tree rings, particularly because the growth of tree rings can be impacted by many issues - not just rainfall amount, temperature, and cloud cover – but also by wind, soil properties, disease, or even pollution. These issues can certainly impact tree ring growth and cloud the scientific record. http://www.priweb.org/globalchange/c...cc/scc_01.html
The scale of that graph you posted says little about recent temperature, except that it began an upswing a few years ago.
That's not what I asked, what I asked is 97% of what?
I think you know very well that the 97% is about consensus among scientists who are actively working on climate change that it is human caused, since you frequent any and all climate change threads....
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.