Survey Says.... Global Warming IS Caused by Humans

[HD MM]

A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what is most interesting is response rates compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively published research on climate change responded yes.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif
Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=190&&a=17

[Salsadancer7]

Interesting graph and story.....let's see if there is a countering graph and story.

[stevenl]

Of course those studying and releaseing reports about it will agree with it ore then those who do not.

[msmith198025]

http://www.petitionproject.org/

This number is bigger:)

[msmith198025]

Of course those studying and releaseing reports about it will agree with it ore then those who do not.

Lol, yeah no kidding. Wonder how many of them get gov funding to do their research? Hmmmm....what would you say in that position?

[Skyhi]

http://www.petitionproject.org/

This number is bigger:)
Your site contains the signatures of 2,586 MDs and Vets........just the type specialists I'd like to consult when it comes to Climatology.

[msmith198025]

Your site contains the signatures of 2,586 MDs and Vets........just the type specialists I'd like to consult when it comes to Climatology.

Fair enough. There are roughly 29,000 more names to go through however. Of which 3804 deal in Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment

[Salsadancer7]

Like I said...for every one that is SURE that it IS caused by us, there almost just as many that say they are not. That is whey NO ONE can claim for sure they know.

[HD MM]

Of course those studying and releaseing reports about it will agree with it ore then those who do not.

Why would you want data from any Joe Schmo on this topic? Wouldn't the research and evidence by actual scientists and climatologist be the most trust worthy source on this topic?

Sure there are common people out there who choose to believe the few researchers who continue to dismiss man-made Global Warming and that is their prerogative. But given the fact that most of us know next to nothing about climate science, it is impossible for us to discuss the meaning of any one data set or other evidence in any meaningful way let alone get a grasp on how the evidence that has been collected around the globe all points in the same direction.

[HD MM]

Your site contains the signatures of 2,586 MDs and Vets........just the type specialists I'd like to consult when it comes to Climatology.

Bingo. Consider the source.

Joe Schmo vs. Climatologists? Hmmm. I wonder which is more credible?

[msmith198025]

Why would you want data from any Joe Schmo on this topic? Wouldn't the research and evidence by actual scientists and climatologist be the most trust worthy source on this topic?

Sure there are common people out there who choose to believe the few researchers who continue to dismiss man-made Global Warming and that is their prerogative. But given the fact that most of us know next to nothing about climate science, it is impossible for us to discuss the meaning of any one data set or other evidence in any meaningful way let alone get a grasp on how the evidence that has been collected around the globe all points in the same direction.


The same ones that fudged numbers in some of their models to get a specific outcome? Or just the other ones?

[HDRoberts]

Interesting wording: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

I'd say yes. Wonder what the response would be if they asked about it as the most significant factor or the only factor (to which I would say no).

[msmith198025]

Bingo. Consider the source.

Joe Schmo vs. Climatologists? Hmmm. I wonder which is more credible?

And read the rest of my link. He gave a small sample out of 30,000+.


1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.


Of course these dont count.

[fallout2600]

Man-made global warming = :026:

[msmith198025]

Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists

I wonder what the breakdown is between the fields of Earth scientists here.

There may not have been very many "climatologists" actually in the survey. Just the few that they surveyed happend to agree.

Of course, most in that field would be more qualified than most any of us.

Which is why I say, the link I gave is just as valid if not moreso. The number of Earth Scientists that dispute this is larger in that link, and it gives a breakdown.

[vurbano]

Define significant. More significant than dogs? cows? volcanoes?

[froggigger]

A complete list of things caused by global warming.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

[vurbano]

I thought we were heading into an ice age. I heard that from someone a few years ago when I was in school. Now who were they? Probably the same scientists in the OP's post.

[msmith198025]

Whats more is the scientist in my post are Joe Schmoes, the ones in his are not. I havent figured that out yet. I say that since his link made no distinctions and mine did.

[towerclimber]

meh.

Stick your finger in a glass of water. the hole you leave behind when you pull it out is how much difference it will make to the planet.

This ball of dirt has been spinning for a long time. It'll be spinning long after we're gone.

[vurbano]

meh.

Stick your finger in a glass of water. the hole you leave behind when you pull it out is how much difference it will make to the planet.

This ball of dirt has been spinning for a long time. It'll be spinning long after we're gone.

:thumbup:

[Skyhi]

I'm curious.....how do you guys form your opinions (either in agreement or disagreement) on whether humans are responsible for for global warming?

I have no idea. I haven't read any of the voluminous research (on either side) from which I could even begin to form an opinion. Do you guys read these technical reports, or are you all just taking a shot in the dark?

I think that we should be cautious...It would be very bad if we ignored the Global Warming alarmists and they turned out to be correct.

Cap & Trade is not the answer.

[msmith198025]

Mine is based on the limited study I have done on global weather changes throughout history. Climate changes happen, they always have.

Couple that with the money grab that will happen from the plans to "stop man made global warming" and the lack of clear evidence to support it, and that is the starting of the basis for my opinion. I just dont buy it.

[Bear Paws]

Your site contains the signatures of 2,586 MDs and Vets........just the type specialists I'd like to consult when it comes to Climatology.


Fair enough. There are roughly 29,000 more names to go through however. Of which 3804 deal in Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment
http://www.crazyamerica.net/images/smilies/new/croc.gif

[Bear Paws]

I'm curious.....how do you guys form your opinions (either in agreement or disagreement) on whether humans are responsible for for global warming?

I have no idea. I haven't read any of the voluminous research (on either side) from which I could even begin to form an opinion. Do you guys read these technical reports, or are you all just taking a shot in the dark?

I think that we should be cautious...It would be very bad if we ignored the Global Warming alarmists and they turned out to be correct.

Cap & Trade is not the answer. Think of it as us being the jury. The alarmists and the deniers have been presenting their case. I have done a lot of independent study (reading) on the subject. I understand it. Its not some mystical science like mitochondrial DNA. I examine the motives of both, follow the money, insert common sense with aged experience and I believe the deniers.

Conclusion. The earth was warming for a while...again... just as it has countless times before at varying rates. It was the warmest in 1934 in recent history...cooled off drastically until the 80s ( when that impending eminent ice age panic ended) and rewarmed till 1998 and is cooling again.. Right now we are in a sun spot minimum that increases radiation and the earth has still not reached the temp it did in "34" or during the medieval warming period 800-1300AD just before the mini [little]ice age that killed the grape vineyards on Greenland. If it had gotten hotter we would be drinking Greenlandic Wine... again... With all the manipulation of data and evidence by the warmer cult leaves one to disbelieve the forensics was honest..

If we are contributing its infinitesimal and perfectly natural.. WE are part of the natural world..For those that have never traveled the world just don't realize how big and diverse this place is. Its not like your back yard. Even that you don't have not that much long term effect on.. Those of the panic cult that would stop all human activity and go back to living in caves, heating and cooking on a open fires..are the ones selling the fire wood and would want too control the caves...while they look down on us from their Algore size air conditioned castles. Are we really that stupid??? This is not the first time in history that some self appointed high priest of doom and gloom convinced the fearful flock to drink the Kool-Aid and pay tidings to him for his salvation. Did you already forget the last end of the world mega billion dollar scare scam.. Y2K?

The other thing I look at and I find most telling of all. Its the ideological world view of the "warmers". I will guarantee, I know this, that their world view was of that of a progressive or new liberal before they became cultists of the global warming religion.. The politics came before the science. Pseudo or otherwise.. Yes you can say there is a political divide between warmers and deniers. There where no deniers before the warmers. Its not like we where trying to sell global cooling first..

[fallout2600]

I think that we should be cautious...It would be very bad if we ignored the Global Warming alarmists and they turned out to be correct.

That would be the equivalent of following Bush into Iraq.....just saying.....

We can't prove it, it might be true, we're dead if it's true, then we must do it.....where is the Common Sense in that?


I personally don't buy it b/c:

1) They admit they don't consider the sun as a warming agent....wow
2) The scare tactics are just like the warmongers...
3) I live in hurricane alley and have seen the intensity of storms increase and decrease for 30 years and understand there is a cyclical cycle to it.
4) The 1 degree temperature change they do project when they do apply common sense would NOT be deadly to human existence on Earth.
5) Al Gore is a politician...
6) NASA won't take a stand on it either way which tells me they don't know.
7) Cap and Trade is the end game, political...
8) The ice caps have melted before in Earth's history. Research ancient maps...
9) Ice Ages??? Did man exist then? Was he driving cars?
...
...
...

[Derwin0]

I'm curious.....how do you guys form your opinions (either in agreement or disagreement) on whether humans are responsible for for global warming?
Personally I base it on a few different things.

1) They can't accurately predict the weather 1 week from now, sometimes not even the next day.

2) I remember the Ice Age warnings as well, then things warmed up and it became Global Warming, now things are getting colder again.

3) There have been how many Ice Ages in the distant past? Obviously the Earth must go through some warmings and coolings on it's own.

4) The Sun, more solar activity means warmer weather, less means cooler weather. That's a proven, so which leads to the question of is any recent warming and/or cooling treads because of us or the Sun?

5) $$$ Dire predictions get more government/grant money. After all, who funds a scientist that says everything is okay?

[msmith198025]

Plenty of answers by people that do not buy it. Not one by those that do.

[Skyhi]

Personally I base it on a few different things.

1) They can't accurately predict the weather 1 week from now, sometimes not even the next day.

But they CAN!!! (I'm not going to hijack another thread, though)

[msmith198025]

But they CAN!!! (I'm not going to hijack another thread, though)


I dont think it is hijacking.

Ill give you a week, and that is iffy sometimes. You cant say it is 100 percent.

So how do they predict 20 years out?

[fallout2600]

So how do they predict 20 years out?

Exactly, they can't......

[towerclimber]

No, they can't, but they can type up a bunch of BS, distort figures and delete raw data so that they can get money in the way of grants, assist politicians in making a campaign platform and help hucksters make a buck off folks.

Then again, you can't dispute facts...like this one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

How's my carbon footprint now?

[HD MM]

Ok, here's an analogy some of you may be able to better understand...

Let's say you fill your car's gas tank with a crappy combination of gas some sort of vicious acid. Do you think the acid will deteriorate the engine over time?

What about eating bad your entire life? Filling your overweight body with processed foods loaded with fat, sugars and cholesterol has to deteriorate the body over time too, right?

The planet is the same concept. Putting harmful emissions into the environment has to have a negative effect. It only makes sense.

[Skyhi]

I dont think it is hijacking.

Ill give you a week, and that is iffy sometimes. You cant say it is 100 percent.

So how do they predict 20 years out?
Start reading this thread at post 62 for my thoughts on the subject.

http://www.sonicbabble.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35483&page=5

Meteorology and Climatology are two different things. Just because meteorologists can't predict what the weather is going to be like IN YOUR BACKYARD in 7 days (even though they can fairly well) doesn't mean that climatologists can't predict future climates. The two disciplines don't go hand in hand.

[fallout2600]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm


Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

[HDRoberts]

Here's an analogy. I'm a civil engineer. I can take a certain structural steel part, and, knowing certain qualities about the metal, I can, with fair accuracy predict what load it will take to break it.

Now, ask me to determine exactly at what precise line the fracture will occur? I can't. There are too many tiny little variables in the metal. I can take a good guess based on were the stress in concentrated, but I don't know.

See, a meteorologist is looking at tiny little variables to tell exactly when and how something will occur. Climatology is looking at things on a much larger scale, and can be accurate.

Like I said, I'm not convinced global warming is caused primarily by humans. But I don't see what is so wrong with trying to stop our use of unsustainable fuels like gas, oil, and coal, which also produce CO2.

[HDRoberts]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Fine, so only 45%/ So, I'll pee in your coffee, and dump out 55% of it and replace it with fresh. Still want to drink it?

[Derwin0]

But they CAN!!! (I'm not going to hijack another thread, though)

Spoken like someone who doesn't live in Southern PA between the Mountains and the Ocean.

We had a report a few weeks ago that actually said we could get between 2-3 inches of snow or nothing at all. They were wrong and we got 5-6.

Last week they called for 6-8 inches and we got dumped on with 18 (luckily I missed that storm).

[Skyhi]

Spoken like someone who doesn't live in Southern PA between the Mountains and the Ocean.

We had a report a few weeks ago that actually said we could get between 2-3 inches of snow or nothing at all. They were wrong and we got 5-6.

Last week they called for 6-8 inches and we got dumped on with 18 (luckily I missed that storm).
No, but I live SE of Lake Erie and that presents its own challenges for forecasters (esp. in the winter before the lake freezes).

In both examples, they called for Snow and you got it.

[towerclimber]

Ok, here's an analogy some of you may be able to better understand...

Let's say you fill your car's gas tank with a crappy combination of gas some sort of vicious acid. Do you think the acid will deteriorate the engine over time?

What about eating bad your entire life? Filling your overweight body with processed foods loaded with fat, sugars and cholesterol has to deteriorate the body over time too, right?

The planet is the same concept. Putting harmful emissions into the environment has to have a negative effect. It only makes sense.

The fault of this analogy is this: Our bodies are designed to run down.
The earth will continually balance itself either through small adjustments or through large and violent ones and while it may run down, it will be long after the human race is dust.
The basic premise that you put forward is that the earth will extinguish the human race..it will in effect "punish" us for evolving and multiplying.
The problem with that is that there have been no abrupt changes in our environment that would support that premise. What we have seen has been gentle curves of temperature changes that appear to be in line with the rest of the planets in our solar system, in line with the temperature changes that are occurring in our sun, and in line with the past trends we've seen on the Earth.
If this idea was erroneous, then the ACU and it's proponents wouldn't have designed their programs to increase the global temperature regardless of inputted data, wouldn't have refused foia requests or destroyed emails and raw data that would undermine their position or make them legally culpable.

I was open to agreement with climate change widgets until I saw that.

now? I think they're charlatans and confidence men.
no better than a shell game artist.

[Derwin0]

No, but I live SE of Lake Erie and that presents its own challenges for forecasters (esp. in the winter before the lake freezes).

In both examples, they called for Snow and you got it.
And other times they've called for snow, and we didn't get it.
I remember last year a couple times they way they talked that schools would get a 2 hour delay, and boom, nothing happens.

[fallout2600]

Fine, so only 45%/ So, I'll pee in your coffee, and dump out 55% of it and replace it with fresh. Still want to drink it?

Breaking News: CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a necessity for life on Earth!!!!!

[Bob Haller]

The fault of this analogy is this: Our bodies are designed to run down.
The earth will continually balance itself either through small adjustments or through large and violent ones and while it may run down, it will be long after the human race is dust.
The basic premise that you put forward is that the earth will extinguish the human race..it will in effect "punish" us for evolving and multiplying.
The problem with that is that there have been no abrupt changes in our environment that would support that premise. What we have seen has been gentle curves of temperature changes that appear to be in line with the rest of the planets in our solar system, in line with the temperature changes that are occurring in our sun, and in line with the past trends we've seen on the Earth.
If this idea was erroneous, then the ACU and it's proponents wouldn't have designed their programs to increase the global temperature regardless of inputted data, wouldn't have refused foia requests or destroyed emails and raw data that would undermine their position or make them legally culpable.

I was open to agreement with climate change widgets until I saw that.

now? I think they're charlatans and confidence men.
no better than a shell game artist.

So the earth adjusts by melting all the glaciers, and ocean levels raise over 200 feet........

is that truly a good fix?

meanwhile large areas now farmland may become dust bowls.

might see a big famine while all coastal areas flood.

no doubt verb will blame it on obama........:bow:

[vurbano]

Exactly, they can't......

Hell 30 years ago they were predicting an ice age. In another 20 years we will be back to that.

[vurbano]

So the earth adjusts by melting all the glaciers, and ocean levels raise over 200 feet........

is that truly a good fix?

meanwhile large areas now farmland may become dust bowls.

might see a big famine while all coastal areas flood.

no doubt verb will blame it on obama........:bow:

no verb will blame it on the natural cycles of this planet as he always has.:augentreher:

[Bear Paws]

Breaking News: CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a necessity for life on Earth!!!!! What are you? Some kind of heathen reactionary? :)

I keep hearing how we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that was locked up in the dinosaur poop. Well what these maroons are missing is that if its now locked up it had to be free at one time and the earth did just fine. Like During the Jurassic period the CO2 levels where 4 times that of today. Before that during the Cambrian period the CO2 was 19 times higher. That's why we have all that wonderful black stuff we call OIL. The earth was one big lush green ball of life.

[msmith198025]

Damn global warming.....

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

[Bob Haller]

What are you? Some kind of heathen reactionary? :)

I keep hearing how we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that was locked up in the dinosaur poop. Well what these maroons are missing is that if its now locked up it had to be free at one time and the earth did just fine. Like During the Jurassic period the CO2 levels where 4 times that of today. Before that during the Cambrian period the CO2 was 19 times higher. That's why we have all that wonderful black stuff we call OIL. The earth was one big lush green ball of life.

ever notice how warm it must of been when the dinosaurs were around?

all pictures i have ever seen were lush green growth.

plus we are adding CO2 that was locked up many years ago.

so fill your cup with water, now add water from a melting glacier the cup runeth over.

[Skyhi]

Damn global warming.....

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif
Oh boy.........

When the USA is experiencing an (un)usual heat-wave in the middle of Summer, do you start to wonder if the World is heating up? :)

[Skyhi]

Damn global warming.....




The computer models were correct 2 weeks out in predicting a major winter storm. The exact location took a little longer to nail down, but overall I'd say they did a pretty good job.

The cold and low pressures parading along the gulf coast that I talked about above are still in play....they're just delayed by a day or 2 because the major winter storm went further west.
There's a quote from before Christmas where the computer models absolutely nailed the cold weather. I believe we also had 2-3 (weak) LP's originate in the gulf and hug the EC.

[msmith198025]

Oh boy.........

When the USA is experiencing an (un)usual heat-wave in the middle of Summer, do you start to wonder if the World is heating up? :)

Nope, it is supposed to be hot in the summer, just like it is supposed to be cold in the winter. My post was more sarcasm than anything:)

[Derwin0]

all pictures i have ever seen were lush green growth.

They had cameras back them? :confused: ;)

[Skyhi]

They had cameras back them? :confused: ;)
:D

[Bear Paws]

They had cameras back them? :confused: ;):free-happy-smileys- Nice catch Der Wino :thumbup:

[wildbill129]

Ok first post here.....thought I would chime in. I read the whole thread and didn't see this posted anywhere. A little over a month ago some hackers got into a british university and got copies of emails between British and American climate scientists. It definately goes to show what some global warming folks will go to make or create their point....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

[Skyhi]

Ok first post here.....thought I would chime in. I read the whole thread and didn't see this posted anywhere. A little over a month ago some hackers got into a british university and got copies of emails between British and American climate scientists. It definately goes to show what some global warming folks will go to make or create their point....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
Welcome to the forum!!!

We discussed the hacked emails in another thread. In my opinion, they don't necessarily make global warning (caused by humans) a hoax, but they sure discredit a few scientists.

[msmith198025]

Ok first post here.....thought I would chime in. I read the whole thread and didn't see this posted anywhere. A little over a month ago some hackers got into a british university and got copies of emails between British and American climate scientists. It definately goes to show what some global warming folks will go to make or create their point....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

Welcome:thumbup:

Yeah, we discussed it (in another thread). It, on its on, does not discredit the "theory", but it adds to the doubt many of us already had.

Glad to have ya