Posted on 09/25/2013 11:05:40 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
If you are one of the few humans who has not yet been persuaded by the overwhelming scientific evidence that our activities are heating up the planet, or are under the impression that scientists are still uncertain as to whether dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is causing global temperatures to rise, then consider this brief guide for your benefit.
Seth Borenstein, the Associated Press's science correspondent, has given us a fine barometer by which to measure the scientific certainty that humans are heating the planet. He reports that the world's climatologists are now gearing up to officially proclaim that they are 95 percent certain that humans are to blame for global warming.
That 5 percent gap may seem large. It is not. In science, nothing is 100 percent sure—not even the law of gravity.
According to Borenstein, here are a few things that scientists are just as or less certain of than climate change: •that cigarettes kill •the age of the universe •that vitamins make you healthy •that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous
Here are a couple I'll add myself. Scientists are more certain that humans are causing climate change than: •that string theory describes reality •the rate the universe expanded after the big bang
And there's a lot more. Science is an arduous, time-intensive process about which certainties of the magnitude found in the field of climatology are few and far between. The fact that a stunning 97 percent of scientists in a given field agree on a dominant theory is all but unheard of—and that's how many agree that human activity is driving the rise in global temperatures.
Scientists are just as confident in the fact that smoking gives you cancer and the age of the universe as they are that carbon pollution causes climate change. They are more certain that climate change is human-caused than they are that eating vitamins is healthy. And almost all would all agree that it would be foolish to bet on the 5 percent chance that they're wrong.
Holy Crap! I thought that was satire.
Those are good examples of the variations in scientific opinion.
Anyway, why is this argument even being advanced? Why can’t we perceive global warming for ourselves, we are told that it has been out of control for the last 10 years.
Go to the link and read the comments. For climate change articles I often read many of the comments to get a pulse of the ignorant left.
The idiots who rabidly believe in AGW are extremely dangerous. I have noticed over the past few years, that as the "facts" go against their Gorian religion they have become much more unhinged.
There are many on the left who wish for deniers to literally be put to death; their comments state such.
Their belief in the AGW is unshakable.
They are truly insane.
Not satire. The wAP writer and this Brian Merchant are typical of leftist know-nothings (about science and truthful writing).
Their claim that “the world’s climatologists are” is BS. There are a lot of climate scientists who are NOT supporting this CO2,greenhouse gas is causing all our troubles, theory.
Most of the big original leaders of the global warming, the seas are rising above our heads, and Big Coal is killing us, have backed off, way off their original positions due to “research” on the subject, not just jawing about it.
If you can’t predict the weather more than 3-4 days down the road, how the hell can you predict things measured in decades and centuries?
My science teachers are collectively spinning in their graves because fraudulent scientific bullshit is something they refused to teach.
The guy doesn’t quote any scientific research beyond what he read in an Associated Press story that likely was rewritten from a press release. Ignorance is bliss.
Another thread made it clear that H2O was 500 times more influential in global warming than CO2 but the poster still asserted man made CO2 was the warming greenhouse gas. 95% confidence means that 1 study in 20 is blatantly wrong. But in this case, since the actual observed data is not warming...
DK
Yes, dihydrogen monoxide is extremely dangerous and yet we’re constantly exposed to it. (In a Hilary-like shriek) THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!!
CO2 is freaking PLANT FOOD. And to call most “climatologists” scientists is a joke. I’ve met several and not a single one could explain to me what an “absorption spectra” is, let alone why CO2 (and everything else) has one. Or why it mattered.
IOW MEGABARF
Even assuming we are causing GW, there is no way we can stop the output of CO2 from increasing without destroying the world economy. Even more unimaginable would be lowering atmospheric CO2.
They can fuss about it all they want, but NONE of them would like the results of cutting back CO2 emissions.
Around the Great Lakes they often can't even predict 8 hours ahead. It happened frequently this summer.
Weather and climate have too many variable to track. See how well their models worked the last 20 years? And they are surprised? Ha, ha!
Too bad the writer does not point to the data, methodology, and assumptions needed to come to this conclusion. How does the writer define who is and who is not a "scientist?"
I seriously doubt that a stunning 97 percent of scientists agree that humans cause global warming, rather than, say, the Sun.
Perhaps it is 97 percent of those being funded by global warmists agree that global warming is caused by you. Otherwise they might not get their funding or share in the carbon credit hoax.
That's the point of pushing global warming.
I looked at the absorption spectra of the greenhouse gasses that someone else referred to, and it was funny. The big piece was the spectra of the atmosphere as a whole was closer to H2O than any of the other gasses referenced. And the spectra was just the basic characteristics of each gas, not the presence in the atmosphere. Water is the most present “greenhouse gas” and the models don’t predict its long term effects.
They are morons. They want to transfer $2 trillion dollars for no good reason.
The earth does not do positive feedback systems that kill everything on the planet. Something big, really big, would have to do that.
A regular volcano can output what humans do in a year. We are not at the “really big” stage yet.
DK
Bingo! Also, if you looks at CO2’s spectra and absorption rate, all the IR that CO2 can absorb IS absorbed within about 10m of the ground! So more CO2 does not mean ANY more IR is absorbed!
If you want to find out if the earth is warming, you actually have to know what the word warming means. Basis science classes talk about temperature and heat content. How do you measure a change in the heat content of the earth? That is a huge question, and the heart of the global warming hypothesis. Putting up a few land based weather stations, does not cut it. The data is interesting but not very inclusive. Adding a few measurements in the oceans surface is just slightly better. Tree rings is horridly inaccurate, so if that data is included could add a five degree margin of error...it should not be added. Satellite data is the most accurate, but once that started to be added, the data did not agree with the models, the warming was not nearly fast enough for the predictions. I see a trend there. I will be a heretic for a moment. Climate science is like the science of evolution, full of interesting nonsense, changeable definitions, and unsupportable assertions. With both “theories” I believe when the real hard sciences take over from the soft biologists and the “climatologists” we will have predictable and interesting useful information from both. We don’t really now, just a lot of talk and people taking money for saying silly things, like many politicians.
DK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.