3 ms·

> Primarily, I think, because we are still speculating about the consequences of climate change - if not so much its causes. This is factually untrue. There is

> Primarily, I think, because we are still speculating about the consequences of climate change - if not so much its causes. This is factually untrue. There is a greater scientific consensus on the origins of anthropogenic climate change than there is on the origins of many common diseases. The climate change trends are very well known, the models that existed 15 years ago have worked extremely well at predicting current climate trends, and the impact in the food supply chain is being well documented, not to mention the myriad other observed changes in ocean acidity, coastal degradation, Arctic and Antarctic surface ice, Andean permafrost, and desertification, just to name a few areas studies by completely different specialties which are confirming the predictions.

thenmar 13y ago
Thank you for posting this. I don't understand how climate change denialism is such a popular opinion among people who _should_ know better.
doktrin 13y ago
> There is a greater scientific consensus on the origins of anthropogenic climate change than there is on the origins of many common diseases. You are misrepresenting my statement. I specifically referred to consequences, not origins.
vixin 13y ago
Models working well? Frankly laughable. Global temperature rising for almost 25 years at half the central rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990 and no global warming at all for half the RSS satellite record. Since you mention consensus (is that how to do science? Maybe we should introduce elections for new theories) - but still let's proceed; only 64 (or 0.5%) of 11,944 scientific abstracts published since 1991 state that most of the global warming since 1950 is manmade.
- thenmar 13y ago
  Well, yeah, that is how you do science, actually.
- Daishiman 13y ago
  Regarding the first statement, not so: https://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc... And at any rate, if we want to make it a war or words, at least all the statements that refute your contrarian assessment actually seem to get into the nitty-gritty details of their statistical analysis and comparison between multiple proposed models, instead of the purposeful misrepresentation of the climate denialist that say that there is a single unique IPCC model, when that is laughably false. For the second statement, again: the meta-analysis performed on the research papers shows a 98% consensus rate. From personal experience, I've spent 8 years in a University where exact and natural sciences are the main focus, and I have yet to hear a single climatologist, oceanographer, or physicist say that there is insufficient evidence of anthropogenic global warming. The only people who seem unusually unconcerned about it are geologists, however there is an interest bias in them: A) they don't deny it, but they consider the global timescales and for them another mass extinction event like the one that is inevitably coming is just business as usual, B) there's an extraordinarily high number of geologists working in the mining and oil business and their bottom lines would be clearly affected more than any other industry of researchers.

thenmar 13y ago

Thank you for posting this. I don't understand how climate change denialism is such a popular opinion among people who _should_ know better.

doktrin 13y ago

> There is a greater scientific consensus on the origins of anthropogenic climate change than there is on the origins of many common diseases. You are misrepresenting my statement. I specifically referred to consequences, not origins.

vixin 13y ago

Models working well? Frankly laughable. Global temperature rising for almost 25 years at half the central rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990 and no global warming at all for half the RSS satellite record. Since you mention consensus (is that how to do science? Maybe we should introduce elections for new theories) - but still let's proceed; only 64 (or 0.5%) of 11,944 scientific abstracts published since 1991 state that most of the global warming since 1950 is manmade.

thenmar 13y ago
Well, yeah, that is how you do science, actually.
Daishiman 13y ago
Regarding the first statement, not so: https://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc... And at any rate, if we want to make it a war or words, at least all the statements that refute your contrarian assessment actually seem to get into the nitty-gritty details of their statistical analysis and comparison between multiple proposed models, instead of the purposeful misrepresentation of the climate denialist that say that there is a single unique IPCC model, when that is laughably false. For the second statement, again: the meta-analysis performed on the research papers shows a 98% consensus rate. From personal experience, I've spent 8 years in a University where exact and natural sciences are the main focus, and I have yet to hear a single climatologist, oceanographer, or physicist say that there is insufficient evidence of anthropogenic global warming. The only people who seem unusually unconcerned about it are geologists, however there is an interest bias in them: A) they don't deny it, but they consider the global timescales and for them another mass extinction event like the one that is inevitably coming is just business as usual, B) there's an extraordinarily high number of geologists working in the mining and oil business and their bottom lines would be clearly affected more than any other industry of researchers.