It is impossible to prove one way or the other. One idea might make somebody famous if they could prove it (not possible) and this is only the case because the opposing idea is so valuable. The prevailing idea is making a huge amount of money for a lot of powerful people by only suggesting it may be possible. It really isn't hard to understand.
The irony of this WSJ op piece... the "Petition Project" it cites as its strongest argument in debunking the so-called "97% of scientists" argument has itself been debunked, for such things as fake signatures (signees included characters from the M*A*S*H TV show, the Spice Girls, Perry Mason, John Grisham, and others), use of letterhead designed to confuse with reputable scientific organizations, and the involvement of people in both tobacco and oil industry causes.
Given enough data, trends are projectable with a reasonable expectation of accuracy. But given the consequences, even an unproven possibility of human influenced climate change should be enough to warrant urgent world wide action. But it won't. I'm holding out that in the long run climate change will be a positive. The sunken cities of the world will provide the refuges for fisheries so that the world's fish population will revive. A warmer climate will open the vast expanses of Canada and Siberia to development providing a new bread basket for for the masses.
There certainly could be evidence. The scientists have provided studies, detailed how they came to their evidence, and presented their evidence. Another scientist who wanted to gain notoriety, fame, riches, prizes, etc. could simply point out the flaws in their research and that would be evidence that they were wrong. There is a way to provide evidence.
That's not the article's 'strongest argument' (its the second to last paragraph of the article), its really more of a footnote. Also, the Petition Project is quite well and fine. 9,000 Phds.... takes awhile to verify them.
What I find hilarious is all these studies by scientists are actually out in the open for the public to see. Not once have I seen anyone here break it down themselves and explain why these studies are fradualant and uncover the conspiracy that is man made climate change themselves.
Because I'm not making the claim that a large portion of the world's climatologists are falsifying data to promote a theory on order to receive more funding.
The question has never been if humans have contributed in some way, we know that humans contribute 0.3% of the greenhouse gasses that cause warming so it would make sense that SOME of the warming would be as a result of human actions, the debate is if that 0.3% is driving the change or if it is a natural change similar to natural changes that have occurred throughout Earth's history that is driven by the 99.7% of non-human factors. There are of course other factors in play as well, but the idea that humans relatively insignificant impact on the planet is "causing" the climate to change IMO is ridiculous but it is absolutely essential to climate science that it be true or they will return to irrelevance. That said, it certainly could be true that reducing our impact from 0.3% to 0.2988% or even an absolutely drastic reduction to 0.27% would cause the climate to stop changing like some suggest....but you'd have to do a pretty good job selling that because it doesn't seem to follow any kind of logic.
Of course, none of the science bears out your hypothetical 0.3%, but don't let that inconvenient fact derail your mindless ranting.
Why is it ridiculous? Those percentages have no meaning if you don't understand the science behind them.
what studies are u referring to? Are you referring to a study that says X percent of climate scientists believe agw will destroy the earth soon? My WSJ article that i linked refuted all of them.
From the report, since he won't actually read it... "Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. "
Wow... I am really struggling with my "truth-meter" to divine any readings at all in this post. Which study says "X percent of climate scientists believe agw will destroy the earth soon"? And which "WSJ article refuted all of them"?
Thanks for posting this. Some people have been mislead to think that only fossil fuels have contributed toward anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC, in this highlighted passage, is actually referring to all human activity (human influences). What is baffling to me is how some people then infer a negative connotation to this influence. That's where the debate begins to shift from mathematical modelling to politics.
Not really. One can look at the damage being done to environments etc. and one can see many of the negative and positive effects that can happen.
Carbon emission have become taxable income for our government. There has to be a reason for this doesn't there?
Why is this even a debate? We should be building solar panels like there is no tomorrow. We need people to install them, manufacture them, rebuild the current grid. Jobs galore. Where's the funding going to come from? God forbid we stop using the military to protect foreign oil interests and become independent? Does everyone in America really need a car? Could you carpool to work or take public transportation, but don't because it's a hassle? Lazy fat ass Americans. If they're right it would almost certainly lead to a natural resources war. Portions of New York City, Miami, LA, New Orleans all flooded with water that's not going anywhere. There is no planet B, no second chance. There's no reason we shouldn't be going full towards clean energy
I'm in the pro-AGW/climate change camp. Obviously some here disagree. Like the issue of how much military spending is optimal, there are too many variables for people to consider. It's easy to poke holes in causality regarding the weather and so on. The skeptics have a valid counterargument based on lack of evidence, small sample size vs. 4.6 billion years, etc. I take an astrobiologist/Pascal's Wager POV. This topic is too important for our species to be debated like minimum wage or immigration. We only have one place in a vast cosmos to get it right. So many things are Goldilocks-just-right about Earth for life to thrive. It would be best to err on the side of caution here v. raising min. wage to $10/hr or eliminating it. Since more evidence is needed, are anti-AGW/climate skeptics for increased research and review? Will they call out the influence of fossil fuel companies in lobbying to prevent climate research and discussion on Capitol Hill? I know they are not. Either you're sincere about opposing climate change from a philosophical or science perspective, and you want serious research ASAP, or you're an obstacle to the future of our species whose ego and solipsism will be our doom. There are some scientists in my social circle. They are brilliant, they are honest, they care about living things, and they examine natural phenomena analytically based on evidence. It's true that they can't defend AGW as easily as the theory of relativity or the Earth not being flat. However, I trust their 95% consensus much more than brilliant, dishonest, nihilist/materialistic/selfish lawyers and PR specialists that lobby for powerful organizations who only care about their bottom line and the short-term.
