Only 50% Of Scientists Blame Mankind for Climate Change In New Study
 

Rather than claiming 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming, hopefully now some media outlets will revise that number closer to 50 percent.

Contrary to the repeated insistence of both climate alarmists and the media, scientists do not all agree on the standard climate alarmism talking points. A Purdue University scholar, surveying scientists in the agricultural sector including climatologists, found surprising disagreement on humanity?s role in climate change. These findings, though contrary to popular narrative on climate change, are unsurprising to anyone familiar with the prevalence of dissent in the scientific community.

Continued Only 50% Of Scientists Blame Mankind for Climate Change In New Study

http://cdn.greenpacks.org/wp-content...ate-Report.jpg
http://progressivetimes.files.wordpr...-pollution.jpg
http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/G...ze/GP026IN.jpg
http://assets.worldwildlife.org/phot...jpg?1406604922
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013...982029db73.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...n_children.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...a_2705692b.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-28wNi88weI...-pollution.jpg
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/...aner-Times.jpg
http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.news...?itok=Yc7MBlxt

Too bad the world has always been full of ignorant egomaniacs with a "Mongols? What mongols?" attitude and the rest of us pay the price.

Glad they consulted the farmers. No better way to get quality scientific analysis of world wide data.

Let's through every other major study I have seen and throw it to the wind and now say about half of all scientists question global warming.

The consequence of scientist being wrong about man made carbon, and that it is not that much of a factor and we are spending some money making the air freer of other pollutants as well is minimal.

The consequence of doing nothing and increasing acidification alone is planet changing - forget about weather changing. Not even talking about areal solids and heavy metals.

The only losers in cleaning up the environment are those that make money getting it dirty and can't figure out how to profit from making it better.

There's no harm in cleaning things up, just look closer at the proposed taxes, that's what this is really about, a scam and one that will be incredibly hard to reverse. This isn't about cleaning up the world at all, it's about more money, power and control for the Elite :2 cents:

Interesting finding published by the University of Wisconsin I read the other day:
High yield crops, corn in particular, act like a co2 sponge, then after the crop is harvested, the co2 is no longer sucked up -- the carbon-footprint gets larger. Nothing wrong in reducing the carbon emmissions of the world but this being the 'end of the world' is a bit much.

"While 90 percent of scientists and climatologists surveyed thought the climate was changing, only about 50.4 percent contended that humans were the primary cause of these changes. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/11/20/only-50-scientists-blame-mankind-climate-change-new-study#sthash.T5kMMTX8.dpuf"

:error:error:error

Wrong question. Wrong conclusions. Wrong title. :error

The real question is that "What is humans impact to climate." Especially as most of the predicted changes are bound to happen in the future. And you guys get stuck in the starting line arguing all kinds of shit based on the first step.

I always get my news from right slanted, bigoted fear mongering news rag websites.

Why is anyone entertaining anything written on that site? Go to the home page and look at some of the headlines. It's for kooks like the OP -- and old people who hate where their country is going.

Why is it a conservative idea to not believe what is happening with the climate? What is it about that issue that makes you turn your brain off?

whatever dorks. as long as the human population grows on the exponential curve, there will be consequences to all planetary resources & habitats in a variety of ways, climate change being just 1 of numerous issues.

but as i never hear the shrill voices of climate change ever propose any curbs to making babies, i cannot take their solutions seriously. there is no tech solution to exponential population growths impact on the planet.

:2 cents:

Population reduction is happening covertly, this man is one of the key controllers of the UN, he's currently got the WHO pushing a number of mass vaccination programs around the world, these vaccines are designed to reduce/harm fertility :2 cents:

EPA Barred From Getting Advice From Scientists | IFLScience

'nuff said

So then, do nothing?


So then, do nothing?


So then, do nothing?


No. Fucking. Way. No way no way no way... is this true? Holy shit... if this is really true, the US is clearly fucked. "Make Science Illegal". Wow. Just fucking wow...

"More insidiously, research scientists are barred under the act from advising on any topic that might ?directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work?. In other words, the only people barred from advising the EPA on a particular chemical are those who have actually studied its toxicity or effect on the environment."

In other words: ban those who have the best information regarding the subject. :)

For as long as I can remember now I've been hearing the warmest, the coldest, there wettest and the dryest.... weather since.. and I know something's up.

I'm also a postgraduate scientist and can tell you statistical "proof" is an elusive goal. For many scientists there's not quite enough proof that the current weather patterns are man made and not part of a natural cycle.

Weather patterns are too complex to model scientifically and we'll all be either treading water or drinking our own piss before the scientists shout "eureka"

Too many politicians and counties have a short-term view of the world or have other priorities eg growth and I'm really pessimistic about our prospects.

So...all the alarmists in here are arguing all over the place without addressing whether or not the media has made up the "97% of all scientists" number.

Where does that number come from?

It just seems shady to me. Especially when many scientists have already said the computer generated models from 2000 that predicted man made climate change were based on data that no longer holds. G.I.G.O. (garbage in, garbage out)

Can someone please provide a link that isn't a conservative or liberal slanted site that has an actual poll of all the scientists in the world and how many believe that mankind has the power to destroy the world through a gas that we exhale everytime we breath?

You only have to look at the group behind that website (MRC) to know that it can't be trusted.

Of course not!
Now this:

Again wrong questions. There has been nothing about destroying the world. Come on.. You get answers for what you ask for.

yes - and leave only those people to advise that financially profit from less regulations

if it wasn't so sad one might laugh about it - but...

Profiting is one thing, but economy has a concept about "freeloading". Simple example: factory pollutes, you get some sickness from that pollution, you go to the doctor and the doctor bills from your treatment. Factory pollutes but you pay with your health and money.

Although when factory is billed about this (cost for less pollution), they usually just shift the cost to their product's/service's price and you (or someone else) still pay the bill. Although in this scenario you don't pay with your health.

thanks - i actually studied business management and economics :winkwink:

and actually this a lot more complex...

but the main problem is that in some parts of the world you don't have any regulations and in others very strict regulations but they compete in the same market.

Me too (studied).

It came into my mind an recent article about China and the pollution of their water sources. It was something like 40-60 % from all Chinese ground water sources those are polluted unsuitable for drinking purposes. One would think that this would soon reflect on prices too. If nothing else they have to rise taxes to be able to repair/ compensate the damages.

Hi Robbie,

Would these work?

Nasa : Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
NoAA : Global Warming | Monitoring References | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Canada : Climate Change Science and Research - Climate Change - Environment Canada

On another note, regardless of the cause of Global Warming (man or natural), and regardless of whether you believe it will have any effect (ice melts, flooding, etc), would you at least not agree that it is worth it to do something to help the planet out? Be more energy efficient, recycle more, pollute less, etc?

And, even if you don't think the entire planet is in any kind immediate or far off danger, wouldn't you want to at least, make sure that the US and other amazing countries of the world don't end up like China or India?

As long as their are politicians and big companies with agendas, there will always be fighting & misinformation on the subject, maybe from both sides. But so what - We humans need only to all lift our baby finger to make a difference to insure the world will be beautiful, blue and green for lots of future generations to come.

I bet we have something with it with 100% assurance

China is not a free economy - and criticizing the government is not appreciated. so people just get sick and die.

there is slowly a change where people become more educated and start protesting and the Chinese government is actually very keen on having a high percentage of electric cars for example.

but as long as they burn coal to produce that electricity and do not filter the emissions the way we do it over here, it's no help

How many scientists told the Easter Islanders to stop chopping down trees?


It should be what percentage of climate scientists know about climate change.

Nope, neither one of those links answer what I asked for.

The media and people who are Alarmists always say that "97% of scientists" believe that man is doing this through CO2.

I'm simply asking...who polled every scientist in the world (already that's obviously impossible), and where is a link to the page that isn't liberal or conservative that has that poll on it.

You guys gave me links to pages that agree with the alarmists...I wasn't interested in pro-alarmists or pro-deniers. I was just interested in finding out if that "97%" figure is just made up bullshit to make one sides argument seem more "real". :)

lolz.

there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that section of the legislation.

read it again yourself instead of it being read to you by libbloggers:

(2)Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical information on matters referred to the Board under this section. The Administrator shall ensure that?

(D)in the case of a Board advisory activity on a particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member having an interest in the specific party shall participate in that activity;

it's attempting to remove bias, not add it. no board member HAVING AN INTEREST.

come one people/

maybe only 50% of scientists blame mankind for climate change because climatology isn't science and scientists are focused on, you know, science.

Is your local weathergirl a scientist? of course not.

with all respect - but you already seem set on the believe that there can never be a problem with too much Co2 - therefore even scientific articles that explain neutrally why that is not true are already "alarmist" to you.

so if you would not accept that anyways, we can stop right here

the 97% is the percentage of peer reviewed climate science papers that agree that humans are causing the climate to change.

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

what is being argued here: Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you! That's the answer I was looking for.

So then...97% of all scientists do not believe that it's caused by climate change. But 97% of papers written about climate change say it IS caused by man.

I guess that people of the belief that it's man-made kinda played fast and loose when saying that on television.
I mostly hear it on "Real Time with Bill Maher", as he repeatedly uses that in arguments and flat out says that "97% of scientists say it's caused by man".

Here's what that link boils down to:
"Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause."

So... do nothing?

Do nothing about what exactly?

The United States has led the way in cleaning up pollution for the last 50 years.
The air is cleaner than it was in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's...and the more we advance technology the better we are getting at it.

Over the next few years the companies around the world will finally figure out a true "green" energy technology that can begin to replace fossil fuels.

I'm just against crooked people pushing for ways to make billions and billions of dollars off of the backs of poor people by penalizing all of us for using the technology that works TODAY.

Basically, there is NOTHING that you or I can do to change CO2 in the atmosphere. As I've pointed out a million times: the U.S. govt. spews more REAL pollution and CO2 in a day with the massive military than your country does in a year. :(

I'm not much different than you are. I want our technology to come up with clean "green" energy. I really would like it to happen today. I would also love to play with unicorns inside a rainbow. lol

It's coming. But to create "carbon taxes", "carbon credits" and tax gasoline at the pump to make it even more expensive...well, in the end that causes EVERYTHING to go up in price.

Does it hurt me? Not much. I have money.

The people it really hurts are the poor people. And the people who are just barely squeaking by trying to feed their families.

It's like our govt. is deliberately causing pain to people that is not necessary.