The Evidence for Climate Change
Discussion
This thread is for a evidenced based scientific discussion on Anthropogenically induced Climate Change, please don't comment unless you can state where the information your using came from. There are other threads for expressing views without evidence.
The influence of human society on warming the climate is clear, with a near universal consensus among the scientists who study it.
Out of 11'944 scientific paper abstracts (1991 - 2011) related to climate in general (papers not specifically about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)).
- 66.4% express no view on AGW (the paper is unclear if these are just unrelated topics)
- 32.6% endorse AGW
- 0.7% reject AGW
- 0.3% are uncertain about the causes of AGW
When considering only papers specifically targeting the AGW/CC topics
- 97.1% endorse AGW
- No figures given for the remaining 2.9%
Source: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, (2013), Cook et al. link: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-932...
The influence of human society on warming the climate is clear, with a near universal consensus among the scientists who study it.
Out of 11'944 scientific paper abstracts (1991 - 2011) related to climate in general (papers not specifically about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)).
- 66.4% express no view on AGW (the paper is unclear if these are just unrelated topics)
- 32.6% endorse AGW
- 0.7% reject AGW
- 0.3% are uncertain about the causes of AGW
When considering only papers specifically targeting the AGW/CC topics
- 97.1% endorse AGW
- No figures given for the remaining 2.9%
Source: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, (2013), Cook et al. link: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-932...
Rhyolith said:
This thread is for a evidenced based scientific discussion on Anthropogenically induced Climate Change, please don't comment unless you can state where the information your using came from. There are other threads for expressing views without evidence.
[b]The influence of human society on warming the climate is clear, with a near universal consensus among the scientists who study it. ['b]
Out of 11'944 scientific paper abstracts (1991 - 2011) related to climate in general (papers not specifically about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)).
- 66.4% express no view on AGW (the paper is unclear if these are just unrelated topics)
- 32.6% endorse AGW
- 0.7% reject AGW
- 0.3% are uncertain about the causes of AGW
When considering only papers specifically targeting the AGW/CC topics
- 97.1% endorse AGW
- No figures given for the remaining 2.9%
Source: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, (2013), Cook et al. link: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-932...
Nonsense![b]The influence of human society on warming the climate is clear, with a near universal consensus among the scientists who study it. ['b]
Out of 11'944 scientific paper abstracts (1991 - 2011) related to climate in general (papers not specifically about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)).
- 66.4% express no view on AGW (the paper is unclear if these are just unrelated topics)
- 32.6% endorse AGW
- 0.7% reject AGW
- 0.3% are uncertain about the causes of AGW
When considering only papers specifically targeting the AGW/CC topics
- 97.1% endorse AGW
- No figures given for the remaining 2.9%
Source: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, (2013), Cook et al. link: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-932...
Isn't there a thread for this already?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I was hoping this was to be a useful thread rather than the obtuse and bulls
t other one.
Well, so far, the OP is of the opinion that Climate Change has been 'proven' to be man-made, solely on the basis that 'lots of "scientists" say so'...t other one.That seems a wee bit flakey to me!
Edited by sidicks on Monday 6th March 17:47
Rhyolith said:
This is why I say no AGW skeptic has a convincing reason for being a skeptic, as soon as you ask for only evidence based debate the discussion collapses (because all the actual evidence supports AGW).
Source: look above
No, you look above.Source: look above
Your 'evidence' is that lots of papers have been written that suggest that it is the case.
Science doesn't work like that.
HTH
sidicks said:
Well, so far, the OP is of the opinion that Climate Change has been 'proven' to be man-made, solely on the basis that 'lots of "scientists" say so'...
That seems a wee bit flakey to me!
It doesn't say "proven" anywhere as there is no such thing as proof in science, only varying levels of certainty. That seems a wee bit flakey to me!
Edited by sidicks on Monday 6th March 17:47
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I was hoping this was to be a useful thread rather than the obtuse and bullst other one.
Let's be honest, there really is no way it can possibly ever be that.t other one.On the one side, there's a massive scientific consensus backed up by quite literally a mahoosive amount of evidence-based research.
On the other side, there's tin-foil hats and conspiracy theories.
The only way it could possibly avoid being filled of obtuse bulls
t is if it just dies a death in a quiet corner.TooMany2cvs said:
Let's be honest, there really is no way it can possibly ever be that.
On the one side, there's a massive scientific consensus backed up by quite literally a mahoosive amount of evidence-based research.
On the other side, there's tin-foil hats and conspiracy theories.
The only way it could possibly avoid being filled of obtuse bullst is if it just dies a death in a quiet corner.
On the one side, there's a massive scientific consensus backed up by quite literally a mahoosive amount of evidence-based research.
On the other side, there's tin-foil hats and conspiracy theories.
The only way it could possibly avoid being filled of obtuse bulls
t is if it just dies a death in a quiet corner.
Is that 'evidence-based reaseach' where the actual doesn't fit the model, so rather than change the model, you simply manipulate the underlying data until you get the answer you want?
sidicks said:
No, you look above.
Your 'evidence' is that lots of papers have been written that suggest that it is the case.
Science doesn't work like that.
HTH
My evidence is specially targeting consensus. Which I recall was a major point of skeptics in other discussions on AGW. Your 'evidence' is that lots of papers have been written that suggest that it is the case.
Science doesn't work like that.
HTH
The paper examines scientific papers on climate and provides hard numbers for how many "endorse" that humanity is causing AGW. The numbers are clearly in favour of AGW.
How does science work? I was under the impression it was the collection and analyses of data/evidence.
Rhyolith said:
My evidence is specially targeting consensus. Which I recall was a major point of skeptics in other discussions on AGW.
The paper examines scientific papers on climate and provides hard numbers for how many "endorse" that humanity is causing AGW. The numbers are clearly in favour of AGW.
How does science work? I was under the impression it was the collection and analyses of data/evidence.
Indeed - it works on scientific evidence, NOT consensus.The paper examines scientific papers on climate and provides hard numbers for how many "endorse" that humanity is causing AGW. The numbers are clearly in favour of AGW.
How does science work? I was under the impression it was the collection and analyses of data/evidence.
HTH
grumbledoak said:
That is self interest.That's not real science either.
Show me some real science that provides some evidence for the skeptics then? I have yet to see any that goes against AGW.
sidicks said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Let's be honest, there really is no way it can possibly ever be that.
On the one side, there's a massive scientific consensus backed up by quite literally a mahoosive amount of evidence-based research.
On the other side, there's tin-foil hats and conspiracy theories.
The only way it could possibly avoid being filled of obtuse bullst is if it just dies a death in a quiet corner.
On the one side, there's a massive scientific consensus backed up by quite literally a mahoosive amount of evidence-based research.
On the other side, there's tin-foil hats and conspiracy theories.
The only way it could possibly avoid being filled of obtuse bulls
t is if it just dies a death in a quiet corner.Is that 'evidence-based reaseach' where the actual doesn't fit the model, so rather than change the model, you simply manipulate the underlying data until you get the answer you want?
Rhyolith said:
How is it self interest? I would quite like to not worry about AGW, so that seems contradictory.
Show me some real science that provides some evidence for the skeptics then? I have yet to see any that goes against AGW.
The Vostok ice core data shows CO2 rising some 800 years after temperature.Show me some real science that provides some evidence for the skeptics then? I have yet to see any that goes against AGW.
Show me some evidence for spontaneous time travel and we'll talk.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff