NASA: peer review science show 97+scientists agree man causes global warming

[Phantasmal]

It would be pretty easy to do yourself using any college library database with word search capability.
I very much doubt even the most corrupt and motivated denier could develop a word search string that would refute the consensus.
Basically ever single paper I've ever seen either explicitly concludes or implicitly assumes by adopting prior science
that the physical science basis is at play causing global climate change from carbon forcing by man. This isn't even debatable.
We are just counting heads on this one. You think the head count is wrong? Put up or STFU.

Even Havana’s beloved Judith Curry agrees, she just doesn’t agree that it is alarming.

[Phantasmal]

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

[sear]

And now ladies and gents, a classic example of -I am the center of the universeism -:

"Wow; I had no idea that 97% of the scientists in the world are this retarded." TD #145

How fortunate we all are to have TD #145 lowering himself to post with us commoners,
you know; the ones that are open minded to consensus expert scientific opinion in the 3rd Millennium.

[Micawber]

Even Havana’s beloved Judith Curry agrees, she just doesn’t agree that it is alarming.

It's like an asteroid the size of Texas coming towards earth and half the US population is wearing solar eclipse glasses because
3 percent of the scientists said it would harm their eyes to look at it. That's the part I do not understand.

What's wrong with the messaging when a mere 3 % can sway the opinion of 1/2?

Answer: The Republican opinion makers on matters of science aren't scientists
But why not? That is the inconvenient truth.

[Grugore]

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

.8 degrees, over the last 150 years. Color me alarmed. BTW, we recently had a mini ice age. Perhaps that's why temperatures are rising. Also, geological data suggests that global temperatures used to be significantly higher. And that was before humans supposedly existed.

[Phantasmal]

.8 degrees, over the last 150 years. Color me alarmed. BTW, we recently had a mini ice age. Perhaps that's why temperatures are rising. Also, geological data suggests that global temperatures used to be significantly higher. And that was before humans supposedly existed.

Even small increments have a profound effect on the oceans. That was then, this is now and why not change what will help our species survive? We are a resourceful lot and if we recognize what is happening we can make beneficial changes to help protect ourselves, just as we overcame the trials of the mini ice age.

[cancel2 2022]

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

Hey Doris, why not let her speak for herself rather than you spinning bullshit! If you followed the literature, which of course you don't, you'd know that the latest paper on the value of ECS, co-written with Nic Lewis, puts it at around 1.66C.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/...y-interviewed/

http://archive.fo/JBkT1

[Grugore]

Hey Doris, why not let her speak for herself rather than you spinning bullshit! If you followed the literature, which of course you don't, you'd know that the latest paper on ECS co-written with Nic Lewis puts ECS at around 1.66C

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/...y-interviewed/

http://archive.fo/JBkT1

DAMN! There you go again. Telling the truth. Not fair.

[Micawber]

Hey Doris, why not let her speak for herself rather than you spinning bullshit! If you followed the literature, which of course you don't, you'd know that the latest paper on ECS co-written with Nic Lewis puts ECS at around 1.66C

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/...y-interviewed/

http://archive.fo/JBkT1

Uh, note to moron, that is exactly what Phantasmal described. A case where there is belief but not dire is consistent with a belief in 1.5 eq. sensitivity.

[Cypress]

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

Good point.
Judith Curry never bugged me that much, because she accepted the basic tenets of human-induced climate change associated with our emissions of GHG. She only dabbled at the margins of magnitude and severity.

That is within the boundaries of science and reasonable discourse.

In contrast, what the climate denial community has done for over two decades is bouncing back and forth between preposterous and/or unsubstantiated claims (aka, there is no warming; scientists faked data and lied; it's a hoax; its the sun, et al.). -- and all of this bouncing around between various theories has one goal, and one goal only: to delay, deny, downplay, and defer any reasonable action to mitigate and prepare for what is probably coming.

[cancel2 2022]

Good point.
Judith Curry never bugged me that much, because she accepted the basic tenets of human-induced climate change associated with our emissions of GHG. She only dabbled at the margins of magnitude and severity.

That is within the boundaries of science and reasonable discourse.

In contrast, what the climate denial community has done for over two decades is bouncing back and forth between preposterous and/or unsubstantiated claims (aka, there is no warming; scientists faked data and lied; it's a hoax; its the sun, et al.). -- and all of this bouncing around between various theories has one goal, and one goal only: to delay, deny, downplay, and defer any reasonable action to mitigate and prepare for what is probably coming.

Odious fucker, I have posted hundreds of articles and blog posts by Judith Curry ffs!!

[Micawber]

Hey Banana in moon, I am cancelling groans with thanks!

[Micawber]

Odious fucker, I have posted hundreds of articles and blog posts by Judith Curry ffs!!

I don't think anyone has disputed that.

[cancel2 2022]

The only real difference between Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry is the value of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the former thinks the value is nearer to 1.2C, whereas the latter think it around 1.6-1.7C. Otherwise they are pretty in lockstep with each other.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/d...T.5.8071/full/

[cancel2 2022]

The only real difference between Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry is the value of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the former thinks the value is nearer to 1.2C, whereas the latter think it around 1.6-1.7C. Otherwise they are pretty in lockstep with each other.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/d...T.5.8071/full/