Thanks to the wit of Joel Pett, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for the Lexington Herald-Leader, and regular contributor to USA Today.
Are the Deniers Right and it’s All for Nothing?
Comprehending the Climate Crisis: Everything You Need to Know about Global Warming and How to Stop It
Your first stop to learn the latest on climate change.
AGW is a great theory that not all us scientists consider true.
What’s more liely is an excuse to tax carbon dioxide as we can’t tax Rain, Methane, Clouds etc
But that doesn’t mean we don’t believe there are no benefits of saving our dwindling resources.
Space is cold! 270 degrees or 3 deg Kelvin. Lucky to have global warming, we may need more if 3 instances of Earth’s orbut come together and we go into another major Ice Age.
We are living on a cooling piece of rock rotating around a GV2 star, amazing we ever came to develope technology to be able to communicate this way.
Even when we’ve burnt all fossil fuels the weather systems will stabilize after we’ve gone, which I think is inevitable like Easter Island.
Anyway keep an open mind each way even though our emission are like a gnats fart in the albert hall.
Cheers!
No, not all. Just the vast majority, enough to consider it a consensus.
Sorry but IMHO have to say that’s Poppycock!
Have you asked all Scientists?
A strawpoll of people (colleagues) I’ve spoke to on the subject consider it a ruse for Carbon Tax, full of Politics, which should (but has to unfortunatley) have no place in Science, need for PhD etc funding etc etc…not many seem to ‘beleive’ in AGW.
More concerned with Global Plastice Pollution, waste of precious materials etc.
AGW gravy train taking too much away from other areas of deeper concern.
BUT I keep an open mind: For AGW45% & Against AGW 55% in mine.
No one can ask all scientists but I have better numbers to offer than your straw poll does at this point: http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
If you’re a scientist as you say, I would expect you know that you need to look to external sources rather than your own like-minded friends to try to establish what consensus is. I also doubt your straw poll involved over three thousand people questioned as did the above poll. (But if it did, you should publish those results.) But I’ll be more precise in my wording then: the vast majority (i.e. > 95%) of climatologists who actively publish on climate change believe we are the cause.
Ok many thanks for the link, will look and share with my Science colleagues (not in this field admittedly), but as we both know science is about repeatable results and analysis NOT about belief! We all know how statistics and analysis can be biased towards a result!
Here’s an interesting link for you to read also:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
As said before I’m open minded (currently 45% for / 55% against it being AGW) and will only trust scientific evidence only, not belief and as such there is NO conclusive proof either way that convinces ALL scientists just yet, except it just seems those who have an invested interest in it.
This has just been brought to my attention also …
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/154113/Alan-Titchmarsh-Give-us-truth-on-climate-change
Thanks again for posting a comment, Andy. Given our earlier dialogue regarding consensus, I’m sure that you’ll understand why I’ll side with the 98 percent of climatologists actively publishing on the subject of climate change and not worry too much about what an English gardener has to say about it.
I appreciate that all he’s asking for is the whole picture, but that’s available out there for anyone who wants to listen. I think the mistake Titchmarsh makes when he asks for a balanced picture of the whole story is one that many people make, as do the media. They want equal time given to those who believe what the science is telling us and those who choose not to believe what the science is telling us. That’s one of the reasons we’re in this mess with so much confusion on the subject, much to the glee of those working for fossil fuel industries which stand to profit by any delays we might make in changing our behaviours with regard to our emissions.
A balanced picture of the whole story would provide about 98 percent of the coverage time to those scientists who know most on the subject, and the other two percent of the time to those who have concerns about coming on board with the majority opinion, allowing them to explain why. It would give no time to the most vocal deniers we’re exposed to like Monckton and Singer. These individuals have no proper background in climate science, but do have connections to the Heartland Institute and Americans for Prosperity, organizations with easily identified links to big oil companies. If skeptics had climatologists as their spokespeople, it would be easier to listen to what they have to say on the matter, but since there aren’t many of those who don’t believe in AGW, they have to go instead to the very vocal non-climatoliogsts to spin doubt.