Quote:
Originally Posted by nebulosity.
I would hate for there to be global warming if I had to rely on some of you blokes to to something about it!
How about you stop contributing to the so called warming with all your hot air?
Cheers
Jo
|
The debate over Global Warming is a dead topic. Those who continue to live in denial need to show me the dark matter equivalent of 97% of Scientists who reject Global Warming.
If you can't do that then please go join the Flat Earth Society or affiliated organisations, like the Liberal Party. I, being one of many, many millions, prefer the conservative view and I'm not prepared to take the risk on Global Warming until dissenters can provide me with another earth like planet to live on, and the means to get there....
Here's the conclusion from just one paper,
(Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature), for you to consider.
Full article:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Conclusion:
" The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding
et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew
2012).
Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to '
reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes
2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff
2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff
2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield
2008).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '
...on the point of collapse' (Oddie
2012) while '
...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre
et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."
Nough said i think
