Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes, survey finds
Of more than 4,000 academic papers published over 20 years, 97.1% agreed that
climate change is anthropogenic
'Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change,
despite public perceptions to the contrary'.
A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that
climate change is caused by human activity.
Authors of the survey, published on Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, said
the finding of near unanimity provided a powerful rebuttal to climate contrarians who insist the
science of climate change remains unsettled.
The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers
. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83
of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change
is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.
The study described the dissent as a "vanishingly small proportion" of published research.
"Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change,
despite public perceptions to the contrary," said John Cook of the University of Queensland, who led the survey.
Public opinion continues to lag behind the science. Though a majority of Americans accept the
climate is changing, just 42% believed human activity was the main driver, in a poll conducted by
the Pew Research Centre last October.
"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception," Cook said in a statement.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Snore.........more of the same nonsense from the troughers who benefit from the climate scare.
Did you know that before Galileo discovered that the Earth revolves around the sun 97.1% of everybody else thought it was the other way round.
Did you know that 97.1% of clergy believe in God and the afterlife and the resurrection.
Before tectonic plate science over 97.1% of scientists laughed at Alfred Wegener who discovered the phenomenon.
And so it goes on endlessly with those who gain from research grants apparently proving that what they say must be the truth.
Still no proof, however, with every single catastrophic scenario predicted by these wallies having been debunked time and time again. No proof except that they are now reduced to scraping the bottom of the barrel and shouting to one and all "We are the experts and We know best......Do you hear???????"
Just not good enough in my book. Consensus is a very dangerous thing and is why the World is stuck in the financial mess which we all have to pay for - financial consensus is no different to scientific consensus.
As for peer review you only have to find out about the infamous hockey stick graph which turns out to be a crock and yet just like the Turin shroud is to ultra believers in God global warming believers still cite this as proof of their deeply held ideas.
Still I guess if you want to believe in this stuff it's your right to but it's rather sad that there are so many who take the word of the experts and politicians and big corporations at their word and blindly fall for this nonsense.
Belief in global warming is such a conventional view even for those who still believe that they can think for themselves.
Humans are funny things are they not?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I wonder just how much research grant depends on these scientists making a case that global warming is man made?
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Barry it runs into the hundreds of billions. I'll try to collate some figures at some point to prove the point that money talks while people die of real things like starvation while the climate cultists devise more ingenious ways of stealing money from us all and divert funds that could help people rather than let them die in poverty.
As a taster consider that the EU has put aside 35% of an 80 billion euros for climate change research. Under the Horizon 2020 scheme which...... "Provide € 31 748 million to help address major concerns shared by all Europeans such as climate change, developing sustainable transport and mobility, making renewable energy more affordable, ensuring food safety and security, or coping with the challenge of an ageing population".
That's a lorra lorra money Cilla.
One way canny researchers manage to steal our money is that when they want to carry out research on, say, the mating habits of lesser spotted owls they merely add the magic words ......research into the mating habits of lesser spotted owls impacted by climate change.
This cult was originally popular with disenfranchised socialists and ultra lefties who knew the game was up once the wall came down and their only hope lay in the far flung reaches of North Korea. They found a way to manifest their collective grievances and used the proxy of environmentalism to pursue their hobby.
The worrying thing though is that even the right of politics has been infected. Look at those Tories with influence in the higher echelons not to mention Cameron himself.
Still as I always say, all good cults come to an end.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#3 spot on Barry, if a scientist puts up a proposal for anti-AGW research he won't get funding.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
one of the great things about the forum is the capacity to educate with new words arriving here by the day.
reg has chipped in with "anthropogenic" which i will casually drop into conversation at the next candlenight soiree at posh barry's drum.
Does anyone know what it means?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Of-course climatic change is - at least to an extent - caused by chemical pollution.
The reason being, the air is made up of gases, it's not just "thin air".
So when chemicals are released into the air, chemical reactions take place, and these can effect cloud formation, or facilitate the penetration of ultra violet sun rays into the atmosphere.
And that is just an elementary introduction. There is much more to be explained.
Also, the air has an upper atmosphere cap, which effectively divides Earth's atmosphere from outer Space.
Pollution cannot just "rise and leave the atmosphere".
The particles remain within Earth's atmosphere and interact.
And those chemicals that do reach the outer layers destroy the ozone, which forms the outermost layer and protects us from the ultraviolet sunbeams.
Philip, have you ever studied chemistry?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
One could also turn the tables and suggest that some deniers of man-caused climate change have a political agenda and try to agitate populist reaction to government decisions to curb - or reduce - pollution.
Something to do with "wanting to pay less taxes".
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Nah that's mere conspiracy theory Alexander.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Im sure anti climate change scientists get the same grants/rewards
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
I'm even surer that you are completely and utterly wrong Keith. Of course if you can present evidence to verify that assertion please post it up.
While you're there if you can give us all one, and only one example of evidence which can prove that the climate has changed over recent time as a consequence of the use of fossil fuels feel free to post that too.
I'll wager you won't be able to just as nobody on the planet has been able to up until now.
Anybody? One example?
Didn't think so.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Its not for me to prove anti scientists get a rare deal thats for you philip
We do have scientists everyday warning of climate change
we also have other scientists claiming its all tosh
who's right? will we ever know?
thing is, if the anti's got it wrong it could all be to late
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 717- Registered: 16 Jun 2011
- Posts: 468
Totally unrelated and I expect a backlash from this but is anything going on in Dover these days?
Top 7 threads all politics related (ok the mayor one quite relevant). The forum seems to be turning a tad political and less related to current events in Dover......just an opinion
Keeps politics to myself
Guest 717- Registered: 16 Jun 2011
- Posts: 468
The above was meant for another thread. The first one must have changed as I clicked on it.
Keeps politics to myself
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
never mind
there are lots of things going on in Dover all the time
im sure some of our cllrs and volunteers can fill you in more
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Helen T wrote:Totally unrelated and I expect a backlash from this but is anything going on in Dover these days?
Top 7 threads all politics related (ok the mayor one quite relevant). The forum seems to be turning a tad political and less related to current events in Dover......just an opinion
No backlash from me as I agree and have said similar in the past.
The usual response I got was along the lines of "you don't have to read them" so nothing ever changes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Jan, after having given thought to your point, my conclusion is, one doesn't have to read political threads.
Helen, plenty goes on in Dover: cars and lorries drive by and pollute the air.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
the worse cullprits are those who crack arse.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Has that theory been peer reviewed Brian?