My Big Fat Anthropogenic Climate Change Thread

[Samadhi]

Something I'm not sure about with climate change.

It's going to kill all people or just some or most people?

I would assume that depends on how much of a temperature change there is and how well we adapt to that change. The biggest issue I can see is desertification. We already have an imbalance of who has access to food, and I can see that worsening.

That's a weird way of putting it.
Imbalance of who has access to food.

[The New California Republic]

Probably just some people. But I like surprises.

Can we do it on age and wealth then?
Cause if you've been here a while and still are dirt poor what you have to give might not be worth enough.

And old people consume too much alcohol, driving prices up for the rest of us.

Abhorrent.

[The Free Joy State]

Can we do it on age and wealth then?
Cause if you've been here a while and still are dirt poor what you have to give might not be worth enough.

And old people consume too much alcohol, driving prices up for the rest of us.

Abhorrent.

I know, right?

That anyone's response to the threat of manmade climate change, and the genuine risk it poses to the future of human life, is to pose some genocidal Logan's Run meme answer...

[Rojava Free State]

Something I'm not sure about with climate change.

It's going to kill all people or just some or most people?

There's 7 billion of us. It can't kill us all

It can kill a huge proportion of people though and when societies finally collapse under the pressure, millions more will die from disease, starvation or violence

[Rojava Free State]

Probably just some people. But I like surprises.

Can we do it on age and wealth then?
Cause if you've been here a while and still are dirt poor what you have to give might not be worth enough.

And old people consume too much alcohol, driving prices up for the rest of us.

*me as a poor person*: welp, looks like society just decided to let us die.

[The Free Joy State]

Can we do it on age and wealth then?
Cause if you've been here a while and still are dirt poor what you have to give might not be worth enough.

And old people consume too much alcohol, driving prices up for the rest of us.

*me as a poor person*: welp, looks like society just decided to let us die.

I've seen this poster refer to someone of 22 as "old". I'm pretty sure anyone much over twenty would be left to starve on a high hill in this nonsense scenario.

Best not to dissect it too much. The idea is garbage.

[Rojava Free State]

*me as a poor person*: welp, looks like society just decided to let us die.

I've seen this poster refer to someone of 22 as "old". I'm pretty sure anyone much over twenty would be left to starve on a high hill in this nonsense scenario.

Best not to dissect it too much. The idea is garbage.

It's gonna be like children of the corn, where they kill everyone older than 16

[Australian rePublic]

I don't think that I know better than climate scientists. That doesn't change the fact that the 97% statistic isn't misleading. I would have posted scientific papers which support the idea that humans are contributing to climate change if I was given the oppertunity, but since everyone here is more concerned about ridiculing me for daring to suggest that their world view isn't 100% air-tight, and that I might with them after all at least to some extent. (I mean, did you even bother to ask me what my opinion was and confirm what my opinion was before you went on your crusaide about how wrong I am. Where did I say that humans aren't causing climate change? Tell me where? And don't forget that if I did, I would be extremely outnumbered. I consider myself a centrist. Accoriding to NS, I am a radical right-winger, whilst accoridng to right-winged people that I a debate against, I am considered somewhat of a radical leftist. At least the right-wingers give the oppertunity to speak my mind and don't start insulting my intelligence for opinions that I don't hold. I was going to talk post scientific articles which prove climate change, but I'm not going to bother, but if you're going to insult me for not doing so, despite the fact that I clearly said that this thread ain't finished, then I'm not going to bother. If you're just going to assume what my position is without giving me the oppertunity to actually expliciately state what is, so that you can have the oppertunity to insult me, then there's really no point in me debating any further. Have fun living in your closed-minded bubble where you and your lefty friends are 100% right about everything and anyone who disagrees with you is 100% wrong by default

ah yes.
It isn't misleading, thank you for affirming that.
most of us are insulting you for opinions you do hold, like, oh, I don't know...
THAT YOU THINK OBAMA IS A MUSLIM
also, not everyone who wants to save the planet is leftist. The thing is that the most vocal and supported leftists are, and the most vocal and supported right-wingers are literally slaves to big oil and gas companies.
What you were saying from your original post is clear as day, you were saying
"since some people bought seaside property, their argument is bad!"
And now that you have received appropriate backlash, you are trying to morph the argument into politics, when it really isn't.

When the fuck did I say that Obama was a Muslim? I'm pretty sure that I've never, ever called Obama a Muslim. I might have said that some people think he's a Muslim, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Unless you're refering to the fact that I called him Barrok Hussein Obama- in that case- well- that's the guy's name! I'm not the one who named him. Calling someone by their name=/= making assumptions about one's religion. It = calling someone on by his name, nothing more, nothing less.

Now as for your next argument- I actually agree with you. Irrespective of whether or not climate change is anthropogenic- we need to save the world. I just think that listening to millionares yelling us for not having as much money as they do isn't the right way to do it. There are much better ways to save the world than listening to the likes of Al Gore yell at me because I can't afford all this green technology isn't the best way to do it- a conclusion I would have eventually come to, if you didn't make stupid assumptions about what my assumptions would be instead of giving me a chance to speak. In fact, the very fact that you just stupidly pulled the assumption that I think Obama is a Muslim out of your thin air tells me that you're much you're interested in drawing stupid conclusions about what I believe in than having an honest discussion. Seriously, when the fuck did I say, or even imply, that Obama was a Muslim? I'm not debating with people who speak on my behalf, plain amd simple. Now as for my statement about the 97% of climate scientists statistic being misleading, go on then, refute it

[Chernoslavia]

I have a bachelor of business in tourism/hospitality whereby I achieved almost exclusively credits, high distinctions and distinctions, and, at graduation, I ended in the top 5 of the highest ranked students in the class. This was in in one of Australia's highest ranked universities. But I have no scientific background. This thread is not finished.

Ah, I see.

I wouldn't bother with finishing the thread then.

You lack the credentials to actually evaluate what you're supposedly evaluating.

Not that I agree with the OP, but that's not a valid argument to make. One does not need a college degree on anything to be very knowledgeable about a subject.

[Ifreann]

ah yes.
It isn't misleading, thank you for affirming that.
most of us are insulting you for opinions you do hold, like, oh, I don't know...
THAT YOU THINK OBAMA IS A MUSLIM
also, not everyone who wants to save the planet is leftist. The thing is that the most vocal and supported leftists are, and the most vocal and supported right-wingers are literally slaves to big oil and gas companies.
What you were saying from your original post is clear as day, you were saying
"since some people bought seaside property, their argument is bad!"
And now that you have received appropriate backlash, you are trying to morph the argument into politics, when it really isn't.

When the fuck did I say that Obama was a Muslim? I'm pretty sure that I've never, ever called Obama a Muslim. I might have said that some people think he's a Muslim, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Unless you're refering to the fact that I called him Barrok Hussein Obama- in that case- well- that's the guy's name! I'm not the one who named him. Calling someone by their name=/= making assumptions about one's religion. It = calling someone on by his name, nothing more, nothing less.

Now as for your next argument- I actually agree with you. Irrespective of whether or not climate change is anthropogenic- we need to save the world. I just think that listening to millionares yelling us for not having as much money as they do isn't the right way to do it. There are much better ways to save the world than listening to the likes of Al Gore yell at me because I can't afford all this green technology isn't the best way to do it- a conclusion I would have eventually come to, if you didn't make stupid assumptions about what my assumptions would be instead of giving me a chance to speak. In fact, the very fact that you just stupidly pulled the assumption that I think Obama is a Muslim out of your thin air tells me that you're much you're interested in drawing stupid conclusions about what I believe in than having an honest discussion. Seriously, when the fuck did I say, or even imply, that Obama was a Muslim? I'm not debating with people who speak on my behalf, plain amd simple. Now as for my statement about the 97% of climate scientists statistic being misleading, go on then, refute it

You use Barrack Hussein Obama's full name, but you don't use Albert Arnold Gore Jr.'s full name. A quick search of your posts shows only one result for "donald john trump", and that was a post in which you had a link to a news story about John Howard and later mentioned Donald Trump. You weren't using Trump's full name. So this isn't just a tendency on your part to always use a politician's full name.

A person might suspect that you are doing this to subtly remind people that Obama's name is kind of Muslim-y.

[The Free Joy State]

Now as for my statement about the 97% of climate scientists statistic being misleading, go on then, refute it

Fact-checking the figure of 97%:
Scientists' Opinions of Human Caused Global Warming:

• Carlton et al (2014): 97%
• Cook et al. (1993-2011): 97%
• Anderegg et al (2010): 97%
• Doran and Zimmermann (2009): 97%
• Pew Research Center (2015): 93%
• Stenhouse et al (2013): 93%
• Verheggen (2012): 92%
• Rosenberg et al (2005): 89%
• Bray (2008): 84%

Now, 80%, 90%, or 97% -- the vast majority of scientists agree climate change is manmade. Even in the figure you appeared to pluck out of the air in the OP (2/3), the majority agreed. So, why worry about the exact number when it's a pointless distraction from the real issue?

If the majority of scientists discovered a new pill was highly likely to cause the death the people who took it, people would not quibble so much over the size of the majority before wanting the pill withdrawn or regulated.

[Ifreann]

Now as for my statement about the 97% of climate scientists statistic being misleading, go on then, refute it

Fact-checking the figure of 97%:
Scientists' Opinions of Human Caused Global Warming:

• Carlton et al (2014): 97%
• Cook et al. (1993-2011): 97%
• Anderegg et al (2010): 97%
• Doran and Zimmermann (2009): 97%
• Pew Research Center (2015): 93%
• Stenhouse et al (2013): 93%
• Verheggen (2012): 92%
• Rosenberg et al (2005): 89%
• Bray (2008): 84%

Now, 80%, 90%, or 97% -- the vast majority of scientists agree climate change is manmade. Even in the figure you appeared to pluck out of the air in our OP (2/3), the majority agreed. So, why worry about the exact number when it's a pointless distraction from the real issue?

If the majority of scientists discovered a new pill was highly likely to cause the death the people who took it, people would not quibble so much over the size of the majority before wanting the pill withdrawn or regulated.

Because this is the nitpicking thread.

[Australian rePublic]

When the fuck did I say that Obama was a Muslim? I'm pretty sure that I've never, ever called Obama a Muslim. I might have said that some people think he's a Muslim, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Unless you're refering to the fact that I called him Barrok Hussein Obama- in that case- well- that's the guy's name! I'm not the one who named him. Calling someone by their name=/= making assumptions about one's religion. It = calling someone on by his name, nothing more, nothing less.

Now as for your next argument- I actually agree with you. Irrespective of whether or not climate change is anthropogenic- we need to save the world. I just think that listening to millionares yelling us for not having as much money as they do isn't the right way to do it. There are much better ways to save the world than listening to the likes of Al Gore yell at me because I can't afford all this green technology isn't the best way to do it- a conclusion I would have eventually come to, if you didn't make stupid assumptions about what my assumptions would be instead of giving me a chance to speak. In fact, the very fact that you just stupidly pulled the assumption that I think Obama is a Muslim out of your thin air tells me that you're much you're interested in drawing stupid conclusions about what I believe in than having an honest discussion. Seriously, when the fuck did I say, or even imply, that Obama was a Muslim? I'm not debating with people who speak on my behalf, plain amd simple. Now as for my statement about the 97% of climate scientists statistic being misleading, go on then, refute it

You use Barrack Hussein Obama's full name, but you don't use Albert Arnold Gore Jr.'s full name. A quick search of your posts shows only one result for "donald john trump", and that was a post in which you had a link to a news story about John Howard and later mentioned Donald Trump. You weren't using Trump's full name. So this isn't just a tendency on your part to always use a politician's full name.

A person might suspect that you are doing this to subtly remind people that Obama's name is kind of Muslim-y.

I was going to use Al Gore-s full name, but I din't think enough people would know it to justify doing so. This is the same reason why I never Elton John as Reginald Dwight, nor refer to Ringo Starr as Richard Starkey- not enough people. Now, I didn't know that the J in Donald Trump stood for John. Also, John Howard has a middle name?

[Ifreann]

You use Barrack Hussein Obama's full name, but you don't use Albert Arnold Gore Jr.'s full name. A quick search of your posts shows only one result for "donald john trump", and that was a post in which you had a link to a news story about John Howard and later mentioned Donald Trump. You weren't using Trump's full name. So this isn't just a tendency on your part to always use a politician's full name.

A person might suspect that you are doing this to subtly remind people that Obama's name is kind of Muslim-y.

I was going to use Al Gore-s full name, but I din't think enough people would know it to justify doing so. This is the same reason why I never Elton John as Reginald Dwight, nor refer to Ringo Starr as Richard Starkey- not enough people. Now, I didn't know that the J in Donald Trump stood for John. Also, John Howard has a middle name?

I don't know if John Howard has a middle name, I didn't check. I'll grant that Obama's full name is probably more widely known than Trump's or Gore's. But that's because a lot of people thought(and think) that Obama's a Muslim, and so they made a point to always call him Barack HUSSEIN Obama. If you're not doing that, then why use his middle name? I use Trump's full name sometimes, usually to emphasise how boring and mundane his middle name is, which is a stark contrast to the image he tries to put forward of himself as this exceptional genius. But mostly I just call Trump, Trump.

[The Black Forrest]

You use Barrack Hussein Obama's full name, but you don't use Albert Arnold Gore Jr.'s full name. A quick search of your posts shows only one result for "donald john trump", and that was a post in which you had a link to a news story about John Howard and later mentioned Donald Trump. You weren't using Trump's full name. So this isn't just a tendency on your part to always use a politician's full name.

A person might suspect that you are doing this to subtly remind people that Obama's name is kind of Muslim-y.

I was going to use Al Gore-s full name, but I din't think enough people would know it to justify doing so. This is the same reason why I never Elton John as Reginald Dwight, nor refer to Ringo Starr as Richard Starkey- not enough people. Now, I didn't know that the J in Donald Trump stood for John. Also, John Howard has a middle name?

How about not using it at all? The people who tend to do it; tend to be bigots. The emphasis is more “look look his middle name is from the middle east!”

It’s not even a standard practice. The only time we heard our full name was from our mothers and that was a sign we were in BIG trouble.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtBxI_ydba4 (Hopefully I've linked the correct video
As promised, here's the scientific and political thread for AGW

"But climate change is not a political issue"- bullocks. Absolute bullocks. Some people are vehemently in support of politicians pushing extreme policies to save the world from climate change, and some people are absolutely vehemently opposed to politicians pushing such policies. Politicians, as a significant part of their election campaigns either act or fail to act on climate change depending on who their voters are and/or their personal beliefs on the matter. That absolutely makes it a political issue. If that's not a political issue, then nothing is. Now whether or not it should be a political issue is a different matter which could be discussed in this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that is.

Let's begin with a heavily quoted statistic
97% of climate scientists agree that humans are a significant contributing factor
That was posted in 2013 by John Cook et al. This is the paper which is usually the one that's quoted when people quote the 97% statistic. So let's delve into it, shall we. That paper specially says that the authors studied the abstracts of 1,200 papers on anthropogenic climate change. They did no science and only ready the abstracts. So take that as you will. Approx. 2/3 of the 1200 papers expressed no position either way, and these were not included in the study. This narrows it down to 400 papers which were actively used. 97% of those papers agreed that humans were responsible. The remaining 800 had no position. So that 97% is kind of misleading
Here's the paper itself.
https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en ... ts&f=false
Suplimentry texts:
https://theconversation.com/its-true-97 ... ning-14051
And Cook himself said that the motivation of the paper was to sway public policy
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/stu ... ming-15998

Your argument that the 97% consensus was misleading was debunked by this article:

"Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Image: https://static.skepticalscience.com/gra ... sensus.jpg
Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016). Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page

Image: https://static.skepticalscience.com/gra ... sensus.jpg
Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page.

Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.

The Consensus Project
The 2016 paper was a follow-up on Cook et al. (2013). This was a survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming.
Image: https://static.skepticalscience.com/pic ... age_97.jpg

The Abstracts Survey
The first step of our approach involved expanding the original survey of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in Oreskes (2004). We performed a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011, which returned over 12,000 papers. John Cook created a web-based system that would randomly display a paper's abstract (summary). We agreed upon definitions of possible categories: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no position, and implicit or explicit rejection (or minimization of the human influence).

Our approach was also similar to that taken by James Powell, as illustrated in the popular graphic below. Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts, searching for explicit rejections of human-caused global warming, finding only 24. We took this approach further, also looking at implicit rejections, no opinions, and implicit/explicit endorsements.
Image: https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.d ... -Chart.png

We took a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'.

Note that John Cook also initiated a spinoff from the project with a survey of climate blog participants re-rating a subset of these same abstracts. However, this spinoff is not a part of our research or conclusions.

The Team
A team of Skeptical Science volunteers proceeded to categorize the 12,000 abstracts – the most comprehensive survey of its kind to date. Each paper was rated independently at least twice, with the identity of the other co-rater not known. A dozen team members completed most of the 24,000+ ratings. There was no funding provided for this project; all the work was performed on a purely voluntary basis.

Once we finished the 24,000+ ratings, we went back and checked the abstracts where there were disagreements. If the disagreement about a given paper couldn't be settled by the two initial raters, a third person acted as the tie-breaker.

The volunteers were an internationally diverse group. Team members' home countries included Australia, USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Finland, and Italy.

The Self-Ratings
As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings.

The 97% Consensus Results
Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper.

We also found that the consensus has strengthened gradually over time. The slow rate reflects that there has been little room to grow, because the consensus on human-caused global warming has generally always been over 90% since 1991. Nevertheless, in both the abstract ratings and self-ratings, we found that the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011.

Percentage of papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. From Cook et al. (2013).

Our results are also consistent with previous research finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming. Doran and Zimmerman (2009) surveyed Earth scientists, and found that of the 77 scientists responding to their survey who are actively publishing climate science research, 75 (97.4%) agreed that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." Anderegg et al. (2010) compiled a list of 908 researchers with at least 20 peer-reviewed climate publications. They found that:

"≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]"

In our survey, among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. This is greater than 97% consensus of peer-reviewed papers because endorsement papers had more authors than rejection papers, on average. Thus there is a 97.1% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature, and a 98.4% consensus amongst scientists researching climate change.

Why is this Important?
Several studies have shown that people who correctly perceive the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming are more likely to support government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This was most recently shown in McCright et al. (2013), recently published in the journal Climatic Change. People will defer to the judgment of experts, and they trust climate scientists on the subject of global warming.

However, research has also shown that the public is misinformed on the climate consensus. For example, a 2012 poll from US Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought that scientists agreed that humans were causing global warming. One contributor to this misperception is false balance in the media, particularly in the US, where most climate stories are "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective.

However, this results in making the 3% seem much larger, like 50%. In trying to achieve "balance", the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what's causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.

Such false balance has long been the goal of a dedicated misinformation campaign waged by the fossil fuel industry. Just as one example, in 1991 Western Fuels Association conducted a $510,000 campaign whose primary goal was to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." These vested interests have exploited the media desire to appear "balanced."

Open Access for Maximum Transparency
We chose to submit our paper to Environmental Research Letters because it is a well-respected, high-impact journal, but also because it offers the option of making a paper available by open access, meaning that for an up-front fee, the paper can be made free for anybody to download. This was important to us, because we want our results to be as accessible and transparent as possible.

To pay the open access fee, in keeping with the citizen science approach, we asked for donations from Skeptical Science readers. We received over 50 donations in less than 10 hours to fully crowd-fund the $1,600 open access cost.

Human-Caused Global Warming
We fully anticipate that some climate contrarians will respond by saying "we don't dispute that humans cause some global warming." First of all, there are a lot of people who do dispute that there is a consensus that humans cause any global warming. Our paper shows that their position is not supported in the scientific literature.

Second, we did look for papers that quantify the human contribution to global warming, and most are not that specific. However, as noted above, if a paper minimized the human contribution, we classified that as a rejection. For example, if a paper were to say "the sun caused most of the global warming over the past century," that would be included in the less than 3% of papers in the rejection categories.

Many studies simply defer to the expert summary of climate science research put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century has been caused by humans. According to recent research, that statement is actually too conservative.

Of the papers that specifically examine the human and natural causes of global warming, virtually all conclude that humans are the dominant cause over the past 50 to 100 years.

Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years. The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.

Most studies simply accept this fact and go on to examine the consequences of this human-caused global warming and associated climate change.

Another important point is that once you accept that humans are causing global warming, you must also accept that global warming is still happening; humans cause global warming by increasing the greenhouse effect, and our greenhouse gas emissions just keep accelerating. This ties in to our previous posts noting that global warming is accelerating; but that over the past decade, most of that warming has gone into the oceans (including the oft-neglected deep oceans). If you accept that humans are causing global warming, as over 97% of peer-reviewed scientific papers do, then this conclusion should not be at all controversial. With all this evidence for human-caused global warming, it couldn't simply have just stopped, so the heat must be going somewhere. Scientists have found it in the oceans.

Spread the Word
Awareness of the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming is a key factor in peoples' decisions whether or not to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is a gap here due to the public's lack of awareness of the consensus. Thus it's critical that we make people aware of these results. To that end, design and advertising firm SJI Associates generously created a website pro-bono, centered around the results of our survey. The website can be viewed at TheConsensusProject.com, and it includes a page where relevant and useful graphics like the one at the top of this post can be shared. You can also follow The Consensus Project on Twitter @ConsensusProj.

Quite possibly the most important thing to communicate about climate change is that there is a 97% consensus amongst the scientific experts and scientific research that humans are causing global warming. Let's spread the word and close the consensus gap."
Source: https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... vanced.htm
Clearly, they didn't obtain the 97% statistics by only rating the abstracts, given they contacted the scientists that wrote said literature (After all, the scientists made the research, and thus they are the most reliable) and asked them to categorize the paper as a whole, not just the abstracts.

[Alvecia]

I was going to use Al Gore-s full name, but I din't think enough people would know it to justify doing so. This is the same reason why I never Elton John as Reginald Dwight, nor refer to Ringo Starr as Richard Starkey- not enough people. Now, I didn't know that the J in Donald Trump stood for John. Also, John Howard has a middle name?

How about not using it at all? The people who tend to do it; tend to be bigots. The emphasis is more “look look his middle name is from the middle east!”

It’s not even a standard practice. The only time we heard our full name was from our mothers and that was a sign we were in BIG trouble.

I used my middle name for the first time in literally years just yesterday to apply for a Visa.
Most days I forget I even have one.

[Samadhi]

Abhorrent.

I know, right?

That anyone's response to the threat of manmade climate change, and the genuine risk it poses to the future of human life, is to pose some genocidal Logan's Run meme answer...

That's hilarious

[The New California Republic]

I know, right?

That anyone's response to the threat of manmade climate change, and the genuine risk it poses to the future of human life, is to pose some genocidal Logan's Run meme answer...

That's hilarious

Not really.

[Samadhi]

That's hilarious

Not really.

It really is.

[The New California Republic]

Not really.

It really is.

It really isn't.

[Samadhi]

It really is.

It really isn't.

Being upset about people joking is absolutely hilarious.

I imagined him there being all wrinkled and shit and his brow furrows when he reads it. "This person isn't taking this seriously" he says to himself. Building up his indignation.

Bro chill out, humanity's a failure, don't take it so seriously, it's only life.

[The New California Republic]

It really isn't.

Being upset about people joking is absolutely hilarious.

I imagined him there being all wrinkled and shit and his brow furrows when he reads it. "This person isn't taking this seriously" he says to himself. Building up his indignation.

Bro chill out, humanity's a failure, don't take it so seriously, it's only life.

So your original statement was a joke?

[Samadhi]

Being upset about people joking is absolutely hilarious.

I imagined him there being all wrinkled and shit and his brow furrows when he reads it. "This person isn't taking this seriously" he says to himself. Building up his indignation.

Bro chill out, humanity's a failure, don't take it so seriously, it's only life.

So your original statement was a joke?

I'm 18, and immature for 18, everything is a joke. What I have a clue about can fit on the back of a cereal box. I'm willing to learn, but I'm not taking anything seriously. And neither should you.

Well except for questions, I'm quite willing to work from here to somewhere I can have an opinion that's worth sharing.

[Bear Stearns]

I have a bachelor of business in tourism/hospitality whereby I achieved almost exclusively credits, high distinctions and distinctions, and, at graduation, I ended in the top 5 of the highest ranked students in the class. This was in in one of Australia's highest ranked universities. But I have no scientific background. This thread is not finished.

Ah, I see.

I wouldn't bother with finishing the thread then.

You lack the credentials to actually evaluate what you're supposedly evaluating.

By this logic nobody should ever be able to have an opinion on anything technical unless they are credentialed.

I.E. Liz Warren can stfu about private equity unless she can demonstrate an understanding of a leveraged buyout model and cash-sweep model.