3 ms·

97% of climate scientists agree that the current climate change is anthropogenic: http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-i

97% of climate scientists agree that the current climate change is anthropogenic: http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051 http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-sa... It's not even the first review. How much more proof do you need? I think it's arrogant to ignore scientific consensus.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nathannecro 13y ago
I'm fully aware of the PNAS paper (and others like it which have been published). Let me point out a few other times in history where scientists, without clear evidence for their beliefs, were wrong: When Galileo championed the idea of heliocentrism, the vast majority of all other astronomers during his time opposed his views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei The idea of phlogiston was quite prevalent in the chemistry community for about a century before it was definitively proved to be a pile of combustible turds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory Even recently, in the early 20th century, physicists believed that: a) The smallest particle of matter (the atom) had been quantified, measured, and fully explored. b) There was no more to discover in the field of physics. Clearly, they were wrong. Let me rephrase my objection more clearly. I believe that the Earth's climate (across all biomes) has been rapidly shifting over recent time. I know that humans can impact local ecosystems and one of the results is a shift in local climate. I have yet to see evidence for (cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a danger when looking at studies) humans causing climate change on a global scale. This does not mean that we should stop our efforts to prevent deforestation. Nor does it mean we should ignore local environmental disasters, but linking local impact to global impact has not been done definitively yet, so as a scientist, I question that belief. It is not out of arrogance that I question, but out of the desire to be a better scientist. I am trained to base my beliefs in: Hypothesis -> Evidence -> Examination -> Belief. What we do have currently is a very good "guesstimate" hypothesis (we observe that humans can cause local ecosystem shifts). What we do not have is evidence. And thus, we do not have the opportunity for discussion or the transition to belief.
- Locke1689 13y ago
  Even recently, in the early 20th century, physicists believed that: a) The smallest particle of matter (the atom) had been quantified, measured, and fully explored. b) There was no more to discover in the field of physics. Clearly, they were wrong. I don't believe any of this is true.
wtbob 13y ago
> 97% of climate scientists agree that the current climate change is anthropogenic No doubt something close to 100% of astrologers agree that the stars effect one's personality. AFAICT, almost anyone educated in climate science over the last few decades has been taught to assume anthropogenic climate change as a given. Furthermore, both the folks whose research supports the anthropogenic hypothesis and those whose research refutes it have significant incentives (financial, social and religious) to so find. I don't trust the lot of 'em as far as I can throw 'em.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

nathannecro 13y ago

I'm fully aware of the PNAS paper (and others like it which have been published). Let me point out a few other times in history where scientists, without clear evidence for their beliefs, were wrong: When Galileo championed the idea of heliocentrism, the vast majority of all other astronomers during his time opposed his views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei The idea of phlogiston was quite prevalent in the chemistry community for about a century before it was definitively proved to be a pile of combustible turds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory Even recently, in the early 20th century, physicists believed that: a) The smallest particle of matter (the atom) had been quantified, measured, and fully explored. b) There was no more to discover in the field of physics. Clearly, they were wrong. Let me rephrase my objection more clearly. I believe that the Earth's climate (across all biomes) has been rapidly shifting over recent time. I know that humans can impact local ecosystems and one of the results is a shift in local climate. I have yet to see evidence for (cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a danger when looking at studies) humans causing climate change on a global scale. This does not mean that we should stop our efforts to prevent deforestation. Nor does it mean we should ignore local environmental disasters, but linking local impact to global impact has not been done definitively yet, so as a scientist, I question that belief. It is not out of arrogance that I question, but out of the desire to be a better scientist. I am trained to base my beliefs in: Hypothesis -> Evidence -> Examination -> Belief. What we do have currently is a very good "guesstimate" hypothesis (we observe that humans can cause local ecosystem shifts). What we do not have is evidence. And thus, we do not have the opportunity for discussion or the transition to belief.

Locke1689 13y ago
Even recently, in the early 20th century, physicists believed that: a) The smallest particle of matter (the atom) had been quantified, measured, and fully explored. b) There was no more to discover in the field of physics. Clearly, they were wrong. I don't believe any of this is true.

wtbob 13y ago

> 97% of climate scientists agree that the current climate change is anthropogenic No doubt something close to 100% of astrologers agree that the stars effect one's personality. AFAICT, almost anyone educated in climate science over the last few decades has been taught to assume anthropogenic climate change as a given. Furthermore, both the folks whose research supports the anthropogenic hypothesis and those whose research refutes it have significant incentives (financial, social and religious) to so find. I don't trust the lot of 'em as far as I can throw 'em.