REAL CLEAR SCIENCE reports:
"Not a single reputable scientific body rejects the idea that climate change is man-made. Drilling that fact home is a recent survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, of which over 97% endorsed the idea that climate change is caused by man. And just last week, a report leaked out from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's leading climate organization. It gives 95% odds that humans are driving global warming.
Even before this new data was released, Americans were starting to rethink their positions on climate change. The latest Gallup poll from April shows that 57% of Americans now believe that global warming is man-made. Hopefully, when the general public reaches the same consensus as the scientific community, we can come together to discuss meaningful, workable solutions to address this critical issue."
How, then, it is possible that there is any debate---particularly partisan political chatter, about whether or not climate change is a function of human activity?
Maybe because there is world of difference between "man made" and "contributing factor".
Maybe because of the egregious "cheating" of some of the major studies.
Maybe because that little word "reputable" seems to mean different things to different people.
Maybe because there seems to be great confusion between "weather" and "climate".
Maybe because even today we certainly do not know all the factors that apply to climate change. Or even weather, for that matter.
I suspect that human activity causing global climate change is what Al Gore said it was: "an inconvenient truth"; a truth whose outcomes can be changed only if we change how we live our lives.
Did you know that most security professionals (in terms of national and international/global security) now rank global climate change among the major threats to security?
I will go camping this weekend, and will most likely light a campfire. That campfire is a contributing cause to global warming, but will you declare I have caused the warming. So many people can't seem to grasp the difference between the two.
Your point in thinking that warming is a security threat? Surely you aren't using it as a reason to think mankind is causing the warming?
Trivializing a very serious problem does not make that problem go away nor does it disprove science. My comments speak to climate change and science.
And for the record: I am more than capable of discerning the difference between climate and weather AND global warming and the heating of an immediate environment.
National and international security professionals (government and non-government professionals from many fields) recognize the consequences of unchecked global climate change and recognize how it will, however evetually, impact global security.
"Some guys with crests on their shirts with eagles on them said so so it must be true"
My doctor says that vaccines help to prevent illnesses and studies prove it. He's got a title and a fancy coat, so clearly he and those many scientists are lying to me.
Logic and reasoning first, and then the authority.
Are you assuming that those credentialed in the sciences and in global security----simply because of their credentialing, lack logic and reason? And perhaps even more importantly, lack legitimate authority?
I must have seen them on their days off, as I distinctly remember little alligators.
Ad-populum, ad-populum, ad-populum . . .
Here is why some people might be skeptical of the catastrophic predications of the IPCC and the like:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/t … the-pause/
Their models have been way off target.
This is a blog written by a self-defined skeptic, who clearly, cannot distinguish between weather and climate/
If you dispute the data, or the reading of the data, please enlighten us as to the truth of the matter.
Shhh! It isn't reputable as it doesn't agree with the folks making money from global warming and should thus be ignored.
Shut your big-oil funded mouth before you kill any more baby seals.
Is there any truth to the rumor that Jonathan Livingston Seagull met an untimely demise attempting to navigate a wind mill farm? I am afraid the green agenda kills!
No. I'm afraid that innersmiff chased Mr. Seagull down, tied him up in the focus of a solar mirror array and left him there until thoroughly cooked. Claimed he was more tasty that way. I have it all on video, including the lip smacking during consumption, locked in the oil company vaults for safe keeping.
It's how the green crowd works.
That is pointless as you have decided that 97% of scientists are either too stupid to properly interpret data collected and studied over years OR too corrupt to report accurately what the data is showing.
That said, I strongly suggest you leave the ".com" world of bloggers for a time and read some of what is being published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals.
Go online to a local university and login to their electronic journals collection. Sort by scholarly or peer-reviewed journals and then by key words such "climate change".
You can also review articles in popular, but fact-driven periodicals with articles written by scientists such as SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, SMITHSONIAN, DISCOVER, AMERICAN SCIENTIST, SCIENCE NEWS.
by Jacqueline Williamson BBA MPA MS 6 years ago
If you have been watching the Weather Channel or your local weather station; you will realize that some of us have been experiencing phenomenal weather conditions. I heard that the wind chill factor in one city was 74- which is basically unheard of in the lower 48 states. It seems as if every...
by mbuggieh 6 years ago
About 97% of all scientists accept a simple fact: Human activity on the planet Earth is contributing to global climate change. And as NOAA's National Climatic Data Center indicates: "It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change....
by emievil 11 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is the website - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … -activity.
by ThunderKeys 9 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
by Sychophantastic 6 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
by Randy Godwin 3 years ago
Why do you not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change?I have no doubt our earth is warming at an alarming rate. One of the reasons I think this is because of the photo I included with the question. Otzi--the Iceman--was frozen over 5000 years ago and has remained that way through all sorts of...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|