...they do realize that scientists who were pushing Global Warming conspired to prevent doubters from being published right?
See: there is no problems in Cuba. If there were, the Cuban News would be reporting it right? :)
Great!
That’s 9136 Leftists who will happily euthanize themselves for the good of Gaia, right?
Right?
What step is “concensus” in the Scientific Method? We never learned that there was such a thing in science when I was in school.
“We will bury you in peer-reviewed articles!” Manbearpig stalks the seas!
The question is not whether humans affect climate, including average global temperature.
The question is whether anthropogenic effects are significant relative to other factors that influence global temperature.
And given that global temperature has been essentially static over the past 15 years (and the human activities that influence it have only increased), the answer suggested by physical reality is that humans have a negligible influence relative to non-human factors, no matter how blue a pie chart some superficial scanning of the literature yields.
It looks like the chart from the early 20th century of scientists that thought that the Milky Way was the whole universe.
The one sliver would have been Edwin Hubble. Glad that we don’t do things based on pie charts.
Why are so many of these so-called ‘brilliant’ scientists so hell-bent on pushing humanity back to the Stone Age by depriving us of the most efficient and effect forms of energy? Surely they’re not all ‘Inner Party’ members ...
Is it an accident that he has been president of three of the most liberal colleges in the Nation? Just wondering.
I’ll take Harrison Schmitt and his opinion on this latter-day phrenology, any day of the week.
And where was the grant money going?
The phrase “human activity is destabilizing the planet” is purposely vague and versatile.
Board of Director of Bonner, the Company that bought Popular Science from Time, Inc. in 2007:
http://www.bonnier.com/en/about-us/board-management/
I haven’t done a study of those scientists who dispute anthropgenic global warming, but I knw there are a large number of them.
And I am very suspicious of the motiviation of this magazine.
Democracy and Science have nothing in common.
Democracy is based on the emotion of opinion.
Science is based on Cause and Effect THAT CAN BE TESTED.
Democracy voting gave the World Hitler and Obama.
Science is still searching for a single cause and effect documentation for a change in the concentration of CO2 that has resulted in the change of air temperature.
The 9135 authors in the graphic had no cause and effect to base acceptance or rejection of Global Warming.
The 9135 voted by emotion.
If the 1 out of the 9136 voted Scientifically his/her answer would have been: “I don’t know, yet.”
I am reminded of Einstein’s comment when he was told that a pamphlet critiquing his theory of relativity had been published under the title “100 Authors Against Einstein”: “If I had been wrong, one would have been enough.”
Consensus doesn't necessarily equal "settled science"
At the beginning of the 16th century, a Polish scientist named Nicolaus Copernicus stood alone in his thesis that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe around which all other planets revolved. Not a single scientist, religious or political leader would stand by him.
Guess who turned out to be correct.
This is the ultimate in stupidity. It is certainly true that most climate scientists agree that human activity results in some degree of global warming. The question is NOT if humans contribute to global warming. The real question is the extent to which human activity affects the climate. A further question is whether the resulting warming is catastrophic.
One of the major meteorological societies recently conducted a poll and found that just over 50% thought anthropogenic global warming was a problem.