Why do people say 97% of experts say climate change is man made? Is it really true?

Why do people say 97% of experts say climate change is man made? Is it really true?

Other urls found in this thread:

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
archive.fo/5Utuj
physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae389.cfm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>(((global warming)))

Climate change is real, and it's probably mostly our fault as a species. The issue is that all the proposed solutions DON'T WORK, and exempt nations like China entirely. It's globalist malarkey with a thin veneer of "omg save the whales! D:" on top.

It's man made in the sense that we made that shit up

no

that claim was made by some jew who took 10,000 papers and just attributed them to conclude 'man made global warming is real' out of the fucking blue

they were anything from studies on penguin penises to leaf compound make up

like 0.00001% of them had anything to do with climate change and even less said AGW is real

because John Cook is a lying faggot and you are a gullible moron.

this 97% claim/paper also tried to hide all of the 10,000 papers it used until someone hacked their computers and showed all 10,000 papers and what a fucking crock of shit it was

Ask yourself this. Why do they even report the percentage of experts? For example, CERN has shown that there is a 99.99995% chance that the Higgs Boson exists, based on analysis of the data. It doesn't matter what experts say. What's the statistical confidence interval that global warming is man made? They don't report that. It's not significant. The "experts" are hypnotized -- Scott Adams has written about this.

If it was really true, would liberals have to meme it like that?

The 97% bit means you eother honestly know nothing about AGW, are here to rile up some anons, or are sliding something. Educate yoiurself or fuck off.

Let me start with I believe in climate change.

That being said the "consensus" argument is pathetic. You poll a bunch of """scientist""""", which essentially means anyone with a degree in "science" which is extremely broad and vague and that has a lot losers with bullshit degrees and government only jobs. My school had a fucking "Global Warming" Major and you better believe all these people are working retail now.

Science is about evidence and not consensus.

We're putting billions of tons of carbon dioxide back into the air by burning millions of years of dead plants.

When you understand how photosynthesis works, you know that in order for plants to make energy, they use the energy from sunlight to bond water to carbon which makes, tadaaaa, a hydrocarbon like sugar. After the plants die over and over and over again that carbon is still in the ground and not in the air. That carbon is eventually turned into oil which is for all intents and purposes just trapped sunlight. Breaking the bonds of the hydrocarbons releases that trapped energy, and releases the carbon atoms back into the atmosphere.

Lots of carbon in the atmosphere means there's a stronger greenhouse effect where heat is no longer escaping the upper atmosphere at the same rate and shit just continually gets hotter and hotter.

Only way to control the temperature is to control the carbon. We can't plant enough plants to absorb all of that carbon considering it took a hundred million years to make the oil we're using.

climate change is a fucking hoax, sometimes it goes cold and sometimes it's warm, also this planet is gonna be destroyed by the sun in a couple milion years so why should we give a fuck about enviroment

>asking a science-related question here

Jesus, alt right is retarded as fuck.

What's that picture? Is it Sup Forums related? I don't go on this board to see gross 3D sluts.

CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere

We have supposedly moved CO2 from 300ppm to 400ppm in 100 years.

That is one fish added to a pool of 100,000 fish every 10 years.

Photosynthesis stops at 180ppm.

We are basically at the lowest levels of CO2 PPM in the history of the earths atmosphere, most of the past 500 million years had levels 2000-2500ppm.

people like you actually believe CO2 is a pollutant

ps- plants do grow on their own you know...

Wut. Source or bs 4chinz story

ok im not educated on climate change at all and i remember nothing about it from school however i have a question that im not sure about.

if climate change is man made then why was there a huge melting of ice in the ice age thousands of years ago? is this just a course that our planet goes through? like it goes from extreme cold for a long time to an extreme heat or something im just a bit confused on it.

Anytime you get shouted down for even questioning something, I immediately assume the opposite of whatever it is is true.

*lowest levels in earths atmosphere with abundant plant growth

>33% increase
>ice caps literally melting

It's not a matter of the planet getting so hot our skin ignites you fucking moron. It only needs to get hot enough to fuck up everything we've ever built.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso,Nicola Scafetta,Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

The climate is changing, people have influence over it.

If you disagree with this you're retarded.

ice caps are not melting

its growing in both the north and south pole

you are getting your information from the wrong (((sources)))

which makes perfect sense since the past 20 years have been a cooling trend

Ever consider that you get "shouted down" because you're an insufferable dumbass/sociopath/liar/cunt and not because the person shouting at you is trying to hide something? I get that your logic is simple Sup Forums confirmation bias which you circle jerk every single day here, but get a grip on reality.

>and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion
>expressing an opinion
So they can all say the earth is warming up but they give no opinion

Wow you sure did debunk climate change

Entire point is moot.
China opens 4 new unfiltered coal burning plants a week.
You can't tell everyone to piss in one side of the pool.

(((ice caps)))

None of that made sense
I really wanted it to
I read it over and over
But it still doesn't make sense

>you will never take a vacation to the Mediterranean with a 10/10 busty fit qt.

People need to use extremely tough icebreakers to get through the north pole these days, at the turn of the century, there was less ice to the point that they could use wooden ships to move around a lot up there

thats because you are retarded

wtf I love being talked down to now

>Hey maybe we shouldn't just blindly believe this "99% of all scientists agree" figure and actually look into it
>UFKC YOU ANTI SCIENCE RETARD

yes. because when you ask 'actual scientists' who study it and not pundits or people on the internet they all agree that global warming is influenced by the things people are doing

-source, I am a professor at a R1 institution.

...

you sure showed that 97% was real, the point of the thread you fucking faggot

And yet somehow despite all of the ice on the surface the sea levels are still rising. Check your sources.

Mandates are a disaster. They create a massive opportunity for corruption and wealth extraction by those in favor with the elites. We simply need to fund renewables adequately.

THE ALT-LEFT WILL RISE!
PROTECT THE WEAK AND TRAMPLE THE UNEDUCATED!
HAIL HOPE!
HAIL LOGIC!
HAIL SCIENCE!
EMBRACE PARADOX!
LOVE OR DESPAIR!

Can any lib point to one extended period in the planet's history that the climate never changed?

link to based Scott writing about this?

al gore said we were all going to die in 2016 and he sure showed you fags whats what

American education.

in any case we all need to research and understand it. once we understand climate change and how to control it we can then start to terraform mars and shit..

It's true. The Solutrean's use of wood and Buffalo dung for fuel resulted in the melting of the 5,000 foot thick ice layer over upper North America.

vested interests

not all earths water is in the poles you fucking idiot

Do you know what happened to those wooden ships?

They got stuck in the ice every winter and more often than not were crushed by ice. The pathways were only traversable during summer and even then they were treacherous.

The fact that Russian nuclear powered icebreakers can move there more safely (and even those don't go anywhere during winter) is completely different matter.

>professor at R1 institution
>believes that something is right just because other people do

Let me guess, you are not a STEM professor at said university?

Fucking hell mate give me the salsa

If a 97% consensus from scientific specialists isn't enough to curb doubt then what more do you need? If 97% isn't enough then how can we believe anything at all?

Maybe the Earth is hollow. Maybe Pluto is an alien space ship! Maybe adding ammonia and bleach is how alchemists were able to make gold! Maybe suicide bombers aren't terrorists but part of a conspiracy to cover up spontaneous human combustion! We can't trust any science at all anymore!

I agree with everything Trump says except climate change, but I realize if we don't show China down it will be a moot point. They have no ability to regulate themselves to protect the environment. Destroying the US economy in the short term will only give them more destructive power. Literally our only chance to save the planet is unfettered capitalism and the creation of a magic bullet. We need nuclear fusion and carbon capture technology at the same pace as the Manhattan project and I'm not exaggerating.

Guys, I've read thousands of pages of climate change related material. I was once firmly in denial such as yourselves. I promise you if you go to NASA's climate change website and spend 45 minutes educating yourselves it'll change your whole outlook, and maybe your lives...

Man, I listen to Alex Jones everyday, and I'm pretty sure it's a globalist hoax

Tits or GTFO

(((97%))) includes sociologists anthropologists gender studies majors and other non scientists

sci is thataway

FPBP

>the 4,014 expressing an opinion
so best case scenario is that the "consensus" is 33%

First of all before you go forward, give me this list of all scientists that show 97% of scientist agree that climate change is caused by people.

97% of experts thought Trump would lose.

>97%
We need to kill this meme like we did with the 77 cents meme.

NO, 97% of scientists don't agree that global warming is real. 97% of Berkley professors agree that liberals are always correct. Try checking the methodlogy of any poll that you come across. If you find out that the poll only asked 60 scientists in California, and 97% of them agreed, then draw your OWN conclusion.

>Science is about evidence and not consensus.

This.
The consensus in 1800 was that cleaning your hands before surgery was literally insanity.

>every change is bad
>better agriculture and more fertile lands is bad
And even if the more apocaliptical bullcrap model made is true, the propagated (((solutions)))(more government and a global government) are worse than the disease.

Climate change is real. Just because Trump doesn't believe in it doesn't mean he's right on it. Remember, Sup Forums memed him into office as a joke. Don't think for a second that that stops him from being a clown. Meme magic could have gotten a rock with Hitler's face taped on it into office if Sup Forums had called upon kek, doesn't say anything about Trump's competence.

Even if there was this list somewhere out there in the ethos of 97% of scientist in agreement of the issue it would not matter, not one fucking bit.

Science is not a democracy and all it takes is one person to prove otherwise.

this guy basically explained it. It's not fucking hard to understand. Denying man made climate change is just a muh conspiracy meme. It's pretty easy to understand how it works. greenhouse gasses make the earth warmer. We produce more greenhouse gasses than any natural source.
The earth is getting warmer. It doesn't take a genius to make the connection.

The only thing he got wrong is that it is probably easier to fix the carbon concentration with reforestation that by reducing carbon emissions. Ultimately we need to do both, but reforestation is actually a cheaper solution. It also provides good jobs for young people. I've personally planted 650,000 trees, and payed my way through school doing it.

>expressing an opinion
As in, expressing an opinion on climate change. In baby-terms, the vast majority of the 11,944 papers didn't actually address or give an opinion on climate change at all. Only 4,014 gave an opinion on climate change. Of those 4014 opinions on climate change, only 41 endorsed the claim that climate change is man-made. That is 3973 papers with either a neutral or opposed conclusion.

Consensus is still against the scientific method, though. You have to look at the actual studies.

97% of exerts say Trump isn't going to become the president of the united states of America.
Really activates your almonds, huh.

Her name's Devin Brugman.

Because they get paid for their "research". If they said that the temperature has always fluctuated the governments would say "Well ok then thanks for the help, here is your pay." and they would be out of work.
Climate change is an out of control literal meme that has lead to all sorts of bullshit like renewable energy, higher taxes and so on.

>everyone is biased except the brain damaged neo-Nazi alt right shills on my containment board whose main form of arguing is putting parentheses around words

What the hell would anyone have to gain by making up AGW?

Even if burning coal and oil wouldn't strenghten the greenhouse effect it would still produce acid rain and particle emissions that ruins environment and make people sick.

Not to mention gathering said fuels is a hardcore polluter in itself. It might not matter in middle of Mudslime deserts but no one in their right mind wants that kind of mining operation on their backyard.

Assuming that manmade climate change would is as far fetched as deniers say why would the climatologists come up with in the first place? If banning fossil fuels is in Illuminate agenda they could just point towards the smokestacks, dying wildlife and collapsing mountains instead.

No, it's because you're a religious zealot when you act like that and you deserve to be ignored for throwing temper tantrums.

Thanks for correcting the record.

You have to be an utter moron to think that human made climate change is not real.

Because they are full of shit. 90% percent of it is natural.

Hnng thanks user

It's not religious zealotry, some people just see right through you containment board types and have zero tolerance towards it. Everything people like you do is for some political agenda, you don't have a single honest bone in your body. Treating you with respect is far more than you deserve, so we don't do it. You get insults instead of calm explanations because you're human garbage, and that's the fact of the matter. Keep telling yourself it's because you figured out yet another conspiracy theory which is conveniently in line with the agenda of an authoritarian alt right group of chimps.

As another user said earlier. 97% of "scientists" is a meaningless fact. It could be 97% of people studying the smell of shit of obscure Amazonian tribes for all we know. Nothing is proven by the statment and honestly I've never heard of the "x% of scientists agree" argument except for climate change and the effects of penis enlargement pills on late night infomercials. What we need is model convergence. What degree of confidence are we talking about here?

I believe the climate is changing, as it always has. I also think humans probably are having a degree of effect on it but I'm not inclined to believe that the world is ending just because of this oft cited "fact"

>personally planted 650,000 trees
>personally planted
>650,000
Okay, assuming you went for 4 years of university... And we'll use a nice round number 365 days in a year.

That means you personally were planting around 445.21 trees every single day. That's 37.10 trees every hour. Of every day. For four years. That means you spent four years planting around 1.62 trees every minute without a break. How did you possibly go to school doing that? When did you sleep?

Then please, bless us with your polish intelligence.

can you stop shitposting this autism in every thread

>Without the big government, who will protect us from destroying the planet?
>Without a global coalition punishing and controlling companies and countries around the world, the planet will be destroyed

You create the devil so people need a god.
You create the problem to sell the solution.

>mostly our fault as a species

Today, I learned the sun has no large impact on climate.

that doesn't make any sense. So a concentration is at 300 ppm for a hundreds of thousands of years, then it goes to 400 ppm over a hundred years, and that's supposed to be insignificant?

As for the significantly higher concentrations that occured millions of years ago, you're neglecting the other factors. Long-term effects are controlled by general sun activity, which changes on a much slower timescale than atmospheric gas concentrations. Short term effects are controlled by greenhouse gasses. For a given "sun activity" during a long period, the temperatures within that period are modulated by the greenhouse effect. 500 million years ago the sun was much less active so much higher CO2 concentrations didn't lead to higher temperatures. You have to constrain yourself to examining a time period recent enough that sun-activity was likely to have had a similar magnitude. Within the past few million years, every time CO2 has gone up to levels around those predicted for the next few years (if current trends continue), arctic temperatures have been 10-20 degrees higher than they are today.

It's not that CO2 is a pollutant. It's that it induces the greenhouse effect, controlling for arctic temperature WITHIN given periods of solar activity.

left-leaning WSJ did a story on why this is bullshit YEARS ago

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

that's a nice dick she has there

Oooh, he's mad. Take a Xanax and relax you little bitch.

is (((global warming))) on polish school curriculum? because if not you need to shut the fuck up about american education.

I don't know why do people say 97% of Australians are good posters?

You can say whatever you'd like, but it doesn't make it true.

Pollution is a global problem already. If not by poisoning people directly then by reducing the amount of farmable land, edible fish and clean water.

Scientist don't need to make up issues to push control of fossil fuels because said fuels are already massive problem. Global warming is just a (huge) cherry on top.

And most of scientists are atheists.
>b-but god doesn't exist!
Most of them believed in God not so long ago.
This proves their consensus can't be trusted.

Any fucking idiot with the patience to study can become a college professor or get a science degree from a university. I know, I have one myself. This idea that someone is smart and automatically has valuable opinions based on going to college alone is fucking hilarious to me.

that figure is horseshit user

it is from a paper by cook et all

>the took abstracts from scientific papers
>scientists who claimed a stance on global warming- 97% of them thought it was man made
>the majority of scientists 66% said they don't know what causes it

the paper has been discredited as junk, many people were put in the wrong category
-people cant recreate the study because its utter shit.

-hacker found research notes- the research was utter shit.

this guy really knows what's going on.

Fucked up. 445.21 trees every day would be 18.55 every hour and 0.3 every minute. Still unbelievable. Sue me.

And assuming you meant in the years prior to university. 18 years to plant 650,000 trees is 98.93 trees every day, 4.12 trees every hour, and 0.07 trees every minute of your childhood.

97% is bullshit, but CC is a real thing

Yeah it makes total sense that the sun spins in circles over the circular Earth. Meanwhile the Sun spins exactly like a ball and when you use a telescope, all other planets have orbits and spin. Oh wait

link for anyone getting subscribe/sign in message:

archive.fo/5Utuj

categorically untrue. The claim is made based on a propaganda paper that took a sample of a few thousand papers on climate change and decided that 97% of the sample spoke favorably towards anthropogenic climate change.

In truth, you won't find many physicists - the ones in the field that explore the mechanisms behind the question - that support climate change. It really is a non-issue as far as we are concerned. Over a century ago, for example, it was experimentally shown that atmospheric CO2 radiation absorption effects are already saturated e.g. all of the IR radiation available for CO2 to absorb is already absorbed by the time you get about 20 feet off the ground.

>And yet somehow despite all of the ice on the surface the sea levels are still rising.
physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae389.cfm