Nope, the science is really solid on all those things, so the question I was looking at is how many people were denying clear and unequivocal evidence to suit what they wanted to believe.
You're one of those people, by the way.
The science is not real clear that CO2 is the MAJOR forcing agent in warming. You are being dishonest. Nobody denies that it is an agent. The debate is to the EXTENT of the forcing. Another parallel debate is whether warming is a net bad/good thing. The "science" is not settled on that either.
What about subsidizing corn crops?
Link please.I would say that calling a group that represents one in three republicans and that exerts strong influence over elected officials outliers is severely stretching the definition of the word.
Hell, when you look at the other metrics about the scientific consensus and human responsibility for warming we're talking about near majorities or outright majorities. It's crazy.
The science is not real clear that CO2 is the MAJOR forcing agent in warming. You are being dishonest. Nobody denies that it is an agent. The debate is to the EXTENT of the forcing. Another parallel debate is whether warming is a net bad/good thing. The "science" is not settled on that either.
The $64 question is, and always has been, how much of the temperature increase from the Little Ice Age forward is actually the direct result of AGW vs how much is due to natural variation. "Deniers" say that the "Believers" have been exaggerating AGW to the point of fear-mongering. Nobody's saying that AGW is not a factor.
I'm sure somebody does, but we can collectively tell them to shove it.
After all, the subcommittee responsible for climate change is, quite appropriately enough, led by a climate change denier (this literally sounds like something out of Orwell). 17 out of 22 members of the larger committee either deny that climate change is happening or question that human activities are responsible for it; the chairman of the committee himself is skeptical about global warming. And of course, lets not forget committee member Paul Broun who thinks evolution is a lie from the pit of hell.
Several members, for example, appeared to be trying to mock rather than engage Holdren on climate change. I may want to get your cellphone number, Dr. Holdren, said Representative Randy Weber (RTX), because, if we go through another few cycles of global warming and cooling, I may need to ask you when I should buy my long coat on sale.
I just dont know how you all prove those theories going back 50 or 100,000 or even millions of years, Weber said.
I remember in the 70s, that [cooling] was the threat, the fear, Posey recalled. Then he pivoted. Ive read that during the period of the dinosaurs, that the Earths temperature was 30° warmer. Does that seem fathomable to you?
Two questions I do have though is what facts do you use to convince yourself that our part in climate change is small. And/or the impacts of climate change are negligible?
I am curious.
The second question is easy, in my own life, I have observed no negative impacts in anything. The environment that I grew up in was vastly dirtier than the environment I live in now.
In the world at large, crop yields are increasing at a constant rate to the point where we have repurposed vast swaths of cropland to growing fuel instead of food. Everybody says the sky is falling but yet it does not fall.
<snip>Well there are plenty of folks who deny it's happening.
I try to keep an open mind as it's a highly complex branch of science that's in its relative infancy...definitive facts are hard to come by. That said, I highly doubt that human impact is negligible. I'm not sure how you came to such a conclusion...apparently you made a false assumption about what I think. I suggest that you reexamine your rationale a little more closely. But don't take it too hard...science tells us that this is very common brain defect among liberals. Right Moonie? :biggrin:Two questions I do have though is what facts do you use to convince yourself that our part in climate change is small. And/or the impacts of climate change are negligible?
I am curious.
Thanks. Good to see opposition within the party trending upward. However, I'm very surprised to see 7 Democrats/Leaners supporting the Tea Party. Say it isn't so!
Well there are plenty of folks who deny it's happening.
Like the House of Representatives Committee on Science.
Now you guys just said you you believe climate change is happening and man is playing a part. It seems that you would have as much problem with this level of scientific illiteracy as I do.
Or do you feel the phrase, "questions that human activities are responsible for it" better describes your positions?
Regardless of congress, 97% of climate scientists, feel it's a problem.
Two questions I do have though is what facts do you use to convince yourself that our part in climate change is small. And/or the impacts of climate change are negligible?
I am curious.
Since you invoked it...
Thanks. Good to see opposition within the party trending upward. However, I'm very surprised to see 7 Democrats/Leaners supporting the Tea Party. Say it isn't so!
<snip>
So what...there's a ton of really ignorant people in the world. Do I actually need to define every word I use and qualify every minute detail of everything I say? It appears that you've lost the forest for the trees.
I try to keep an open mind as it's a highly complex branch of science that's in its relative infancy...definitive facts are hard to come by. That said, I highly doubt that human impact is negligible. I'm not sure how you came to such a conclusion...apparently you made a false assumption about what I think. I suggest that you reexamine your rationale a little more closely. But don't take it too hard...science tells us that this is very common brain defect among liberals. Right Moonie? :biggrin:
That is an EXTREMELY dishonest way of approaching it. It is trying to count every paper that doesn't have an explicit position on AGW as a knock against it. The 97% figure is far more accurate. They even asked people who wrote the papers to self identify them and ended up with the same figure.
If you're concerned about propaganda you definitely shouldn't be posting images like that. Surely you don't want to be tricked by those people?
I am afraid your way of representing that 97% number is disingenuous. There are almost no scientists involved in climate work that would say CO2 and man has not had some effect on climate. hence the 97% is surprisingly low in my estimation.
It is how that number is presented that is the problem. It is made out by environmentalists and others to be man is the primary if not sole cause of GW and see here 97% of scientists think just like we do. And we know that to not be true. We do know man has some effect and it may be considerable.
But climate is so complex or simplistic models and limited understanding cannot definitely say man is the cause and CO2 is the primary factor in today's warming.
No, the endorsement is simply this: "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."
Nobody says that human activity is the sole cause, that's a straw man.
and no again 97% do not say that. Unless you define significant down into single digits.
Coal is one of the largest artificial producers of radioactive waste in the world and even China is shutting down their coal industry.
Then tell me what significant means.
edit. In fact Q2 in that survey is entirely meaningless. Significant is not defined. Hman activity encompasses such a broad area that I doubt anyone would disagree man's activities do not ahave an effect on climate, the environment etc...
If this is the best you can do, it is a very poor effort. Not at all scientifically rigorous.