Actions

  Print Article
  BookMark Article

Categories    Category List

Arts & Humanities
  Books & Authors
  Dancing
  Genealogy
  History
  Performing Arts
  Philosophy
  Poetry
  Theater & Acting
  Visual Arts
Beauty & Style
  Fashion & Accessories
  Hair
  Makeup
  Skin & Body
Business & Finance
  Advertising & Marketing
  Careers & Employment
  Corporations
  Credit
  Insurance
  Investing
  Personal Finance
  Renting & Real Estate
  Small Business
  Taxes
Cars & Transportation
  Aircraft
  Boats & Boating
  Car
  Insurance & Registration
  Maintenance & Repairs
  Motorcycles
  Rail
Computers & Internet
  Computer Networking
  Hardware
  Internet
  Programming & Design
  Security
  Software
Consumer Electronics
  Camcorders
  Cameras
  Cell Phones & Plans
  Games & Gear
  Home Theater
  Music & Music Players
  PDAs & Handhelds
  TVs
Dining Out
Education & Reference
  Financial Aid
  Higher Education
  Preschool
  Primary & Secondary Education
  Special Education
  Studying Abroad
  Teaching
Entertainment & Music
  Celebrities
  Comics & Animation
  Horoscopes
  Jokes & Riddles
  Magazines
  Movies
  Music
  Polls & Surveys
  Radio
  Television
Environment
  Alternative Fuel Vehicles
  Conservation
  Global Warming
  Green Living
Family & Relationships
  Family
  Friends
  Marriage & Divorce
  Singles & Dating
  Weddings
Food & Drink
  Beer, Wine & Spirits
  Cooking & Recipes
  Ethnic Cuisine
  Vegetarian & Vegan
Games & Recreation
  Amusement Parks
  Board Games
  Card Games
  Gambling
  Hobbies & Crafts
  Toys
  Video & Online Games
Health
  Alternative Medicine
  Dental
  Diet & Fitness
  Diseases & Conditions
  General Health Care
  Men's Health
  Mental Health
  Optical
  Women's Health
Home & Garden
  Cleaning & Laundry
  Decorating & Remodeling
  Do It Yourself (DIY)
  Garden & Landscape
  Maintenance & Repairs
Local Businesses
News & Events
  Current Events
  Media & Journalism
Pets
Politics & Government
  Civic Participation
  Elections
  Embassies & Consulates
  Government
  Immigration
  International Organizations
  Law & Ethics
  Military
  Politics
Pregnancy & Parenting
  Adolescent
  Adoption
  Baby Names
  Newborn & Baby
  Parenting
  Pregnancy
  Toddler & Preschooler
  Trying to Conceive
Science & Mathematics
  Agriculture
  Astronomy & Space
  Biology
  Botany
  Chemistry
  Earth Sciences & Geology
  Engineering
  Geography
  Mathematics
  Medicine
  Physics
  Weather
  Zoology
Social Science
  Anthropology
  Dream Interpretation
  Economics
  Gender Studies
  Psychology
  Sociology
Society & Culture
  Community Service
  Cultures & Groups
  Etiquette
  Holidays
  Languages
  Mythology & Folklore
  Religion & Spirituality
  Royalty
Sports
Travel

Online Now    Online Now

Author Login    Author Login

Welcome Guest! Please login or create an account.

Username:

Password:



Navigation    Navigation

ADS    Featured Author

ad

ADSDisclosure

Can anyone prove that 97 percent of the scientists support Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming

Author : JimZ

Submitted : 2018-02-13 15:58:06    Popularity:     

Tags: scientists  support  prove  percent  Global  

This should be simple for all you GW zealots! Update: Look at Word to the Wise: His article shows that the American Association for the Advancement of Science has supported this claim. However, there is just one problem. It isn't in the Ame

Answers:

not to an anti science creationist like you they can't

Nope just because the IPCC published a paper does not mean its fact

Where did you get your degree in Meteorology?

That is not the claim.

What has been repeatedly concluded from several independent studies is that approximately 97% of actively publishing climatologists agree that human activities are warming the planet. That's it. You may not think this is a very powerful result, or that it is obvious that human activities are at least causing some warming (even if not to a catastrophic level).

But something like half of all US adults not only disagree with this personally, but additionally believe that most climatologists do not even agree with this most fundamental, rather benign fact. This reality gap is concerning.

EDIT: You are employing circular logic that is impossible to engage with meaningfully. I can show you studies that examine the published content of scientists, or consensus statements on the subject from pretty much any scientific organization, and you will come back saying these scientists are just biased or on a suspicious payroll. Yet your entire question was ABOUT these scientists, and what their stated positions are, in the first place -- not their supposed motives. Do you really not see how pointless that is? Your whole "gotcha" basically boils down to a position that what scientists say is not relevant to a question about what scientists say. It's childish and boring.

The point about not being able to be published is equally out of bounds. The 97% figure, it is explicitly made clear, is strictly about *actively publishing* climatologists and whether human activities are warming the planet. You are asking for proof of something that doesn't exist: that 97% of all scientists (actively publishing or not, and in any field) support *C*AGW. I'm sure that's not true -- anyone who claims it is true is not being accurate.

EDIT 2: Anyone can only be expected to defend the words that he/she actually made. All of this about who is "inferring" what is not relevant to your discussion with me unless you can point to an example where I stated that 97% of all scientists in the world agree with CAGW. Do that, or find someone else who is more interested in hearing about your personal inferences. And if you would like to correct someone who does claim this, I encourage it, and would be right there with you.

Your conspiracy theories also seem to be painting you into a corner -- if a scientist does not agree with AGW, he/she will not be able to be published, according to you. Well if that's the case then it should be 100%, not 97%, since the 97% figure is and always was, only, referring to *actively publishing* climatologists.

So I'm glad to see you agree with the likely reality of the pure statistic, even if you think the statistic is meaningless due to some kind of collusion or corruption. But of course that question is firmly outside the scope of those studies, which simply sought to quantify what that fraction is. All they are doing is counting, and the results are reproducible by anyone wishing to browse the scientific literature. But as with all scientific studies, they are subject to sensational over-interpretation, and that is wrong.

We could get the world's scientists to complete a questionnaire. Unfortunately the environmental impact of all that paper would cause runaway global warming and we'd all be destroyed. If 100% of the world's scientists told you that anthropogenic global warming was a reality, it still wouldn't stop the USA from destroying the planet. Americans know better than experts - that's why they elected Trump.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-cons...

Hey, you're right, that WAS easy.



Good
Back Homepage
Back


Article Source:
www.Aphotolog.Com

Answer Questions