97% of scientists accept human made global warming.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-i
n-man-made-climate-change/1
Found by the National Academy of Sciences.
Read the paragraph where it explains the 3% that doubt human made global warming:
"As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates."
Pic related: the guy on the left is statistically more likely to have fewer publications.
>>7692020
You can't get published or cited much for denying AGW. A few scientists are in on the conspiracy, the rest are just working on what's getting published so they can get funding.
>>7692020
>the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates
If that's the case, consider me convinced...
>>7692020
>study done by pnas
>Only climatologists surveyed, no physicists or external third party simulation experts.
Yes, the guys pushing politicism into science in the first place surveying the cult who gets the most funding out of it certainly won't be baised at all!
argumentum ad verecundiam
shillargument.exe
>>7692026
>>7692030
>>7692032
>>7692182
Oh, cool, I was wondering where all of the /x/ers had gotten too. Tell me, how does it feel to be so illiterate on climate science that you don't even understand what your objections to it are?
DESU I'm still kind of skeptical of man-made global warming. Prima facie some of the claims from the opposition sound reasonable, sometimes. As a scientist I have respect for the fact that it's an extremely complex process, and I am not a climate scientist so I don't like to speculate.
I do however generally trust what the overall scientific consensus of experts say, so am inclined to believe it is man-made, if that's what they're saying. The scary thing is though that we just don't know what's going to happen. We don't know if the earth will rebound if we cut emissions, or if it will continue on anyway. Climate scientists can't even predict the weather reliably more than a week in advance, let alone years or decades. There are very legitimate reasons why we should cut pollution and care about our environment, aside from global warming though.
>>7692020
And it doesnt seem like it adresses some of the real skeptic experts who have alternative models for global warming that dont involve humankind activity, like cosmic ray cloud seeding. The consensus seems to be just as with any other theory.
Next you'll tell me scientists agree black and white people are equal in terms of genetics.
I'm stunned the academic world which actively practices lysenkoism comes up with results that re-affirm their Lysenko-ist theories!
QUOTES FOR EXAMPLES
Kevin Mitchell, a professor of genetics at Trinity College Dublin
“Some would argue it is not the place of scientists to decide the ethical issues – it is our job just to do the science,” he wrote in reference to the physicist's research. “If society abuses it, well, that is not our fault. This is a case where I strongly disagree – we cannot disentangle the moral issues from the scientific ones. It is too easy to use scientific findings to justify policies that would otherwise be deemed abhorrent; too easy, as [David] Hume noted, to mistakenly derive a prescription of how things ought to be from a description of how they are.”
Chan echoed Mitchell. “We can't act as if learning, teaching, or research in our academic institutions happens within a vacuum,” she said in an e-mail. “Historically, ‘science’ has had a substantial influence in how ideas about race were developed and then how those ideas were translated into policy and laws.” In Hsu’s case, she added, “To approach the field of genetics (and not just around this idea of intelligence) without acknowledging the potential for racist outcomes is ignoring history. To be the producers of knowledge without any thought to how that knowledge might be used is ignoring our moral responsibilities.”
Nita Farahany, professor of law, philosophy, genome sciences and policy at Duke University School of Law offered a nuanced opinion: “I think researchers should be careful about the conclusions that they draw. Studying the genetic and environmental contributions to intelligence (if one could agree on what that means) – or IQ scores – does not link Dr. Hsu to inappropriate conclusions drawn by other researchers.” But, she said, “I do think that researchers have a duty to consider how their research will be used, to understand the implications of their research for society and to help safeguard against scientific misuse.”'
>>7692404
Source
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/29/wake-controversy-over-harvard-dissertation-race-and-iq-scrutiny-michigan-state
It's very clear the "consensus" of scientists is extremely tampered with and there is an enormous amount of examples to prove this is the case.
These people are not scientists. These climate pushers have an extreme bias and it can not be doubted.
Global warming itself is a complete hoax and anyone with any knowledge of historical climate change would tell you this. It's simply a convenient grandstanding issue.
What results will a 95% left wing dominated field of study create?
Acting as though scientists are unbiased and the ultimate authority is extremely idiotic. Just look at the reproducibility problems in psychology. These people don't actually practice inquisitive research but are basically "paper factories" and click bait researchers.
It's a global warming hysteria and the 97% of scientists agree is hilarious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
Global climate change is literally nothing to worry about
>>7692020
confirmation bias.
Google it.
>>7692426
i dont get it
>>7692490
Over the last 50,000,000 years the level of carbon in the atmosphere has consistently declined. We are at a very low amount of carbon in the atmosphere and our emissions while extreme are just sort of turning back the clock on carbon sequestration.
With the advent of better solar and other energy sources it wont be a big deal. Basically global warming is hysterics. Earth even having frozen ice caps is relatively new and due to natural carbon sequestration that happened over millions of year.
Even if we do fuck up and it gets hotter. It's not really game over and is just a climate change. We would easily adapt.
In addition it would be easy for us in the future to do carbon sequestration at will to create whatever carbon levels we wanted.
The global climate change meeting should be about setting rules on "target carbon" levels and setting standards for what is allowed in terms of altering the atmosphere/ocean at will.
Basically, the fear of climate change is extremely stupid. It will be an arbitrary thing within 100 years to set the atmosphere to any carbon level we want.
Why do so many people treat global warming like a religion? It's like vaccines, people love to get butthurt about this stuff to the point where proving them is like a surrogate religion.
>>7692524
>the stormniggers on this board are anti-vaccine as well
What a surprise
