It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I asked you a specific question though.
I do. But that article isn't about climate scientists in general. It's about actively publishing climate scientists.
You don't have google?
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:
that 97% of climate scientists believe man is the main cause of global warming?
You know that the data for that chart ends more than 150 years ago, right?
Anyone that examines recent climate history from ice cores has to admit that the only constant in climate is change so we are likely to see more cold or more heat regardless of what humans do.
Well, the connection between low sunspot activity and insolation is not well established but yes, if insolation decreases things will cool down. They will also cool down if the Earth experiences prolonged and massive volcanic activity. But if those things don't happen, and if we keep burning fossil fuels at the same, things will get warmer, faster.
But in recent centuries our climate has been colder than normal and if the sun has anything to do with it, we could be in for another little ice age if the sun enters another Mauder Minimum.
I mostly ignore it, or rather, research it.
When the media hypes something I immediately become suspicious .
Well, the chart is a compilation of published studies. You could start with the google search link I provided and develop your own database if you wish. I did a cursory look and the numbers seemed about right. Quite a lot about CO2 and warming, not much about cooling.
You mentioned it earlier but your link took me to some chart .
Either way, do you agree then that 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities?
Yes, I did.
Actually I searched your link and quite a few came up. Didn't really look did you ?
How is it being misrepresented?
I'm not arguing on the weather climate change is happening I am arguing that it is being misrepresented for financial gain .
No. It's physics.
Given that no industrial age existed during many climate changes in the past 10,000 years its speculative as to what humans add to the equation.
I agree. We are not prepared for rapid climate change. Due to warming or cooling.
I don't deny the earth can get warmer but if the reverse is true its a far more scarier outcome because we are not prepared for the repercussions of massive crop failure etc.
a reply to: Greathouse
originally posted by: Phage
I'm not arguing on the weather climate change is happening I am arguing that it is being misrepresented for financial gain . How is it being misrepresented?
Do you think financial gain is inherently bad? Do you think that the efforts of private enterprise are evil even if they have the potential to improve the human condition, or at least slow its decline?
By saying this:
How am I misrepresenting it?
Those are not the results of the study.
97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities?
On the contrary, I accept the results of the study for what they are; 97% of actively publishing climate scientists who expressed an opinion on the proximate cause of warming said that cause was us.
You obviously know the study is BS
I think so, yes.
Like most people have said, the debate is over right?
That would depend on how you define evidence.
So fine you can play the games you play and sidestep what you and I know is true, but where is the evidence that even a majority agree in AGW?