Quote:
Originally Posted by dtennent
For those who who believe that climate change is not real, please read the following review article.
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience
As a scientist who has published many articles over the years, I have never seen this type of agreement on any topic of discussion in peer reviewed articles. While there will always be some who will publish what they think others want, the vast majority of scientists have the integrity to publish their data and the their analysis of that data.
I think those who have no expertise in the field, who make statements of ‘fact’, who publish in non peer reviewed places and who won’t provide their sources are doing all of us a great disservice. |
I think you are kidding yourself. I, too have published papers in respected journals but never on a politically controversial subject. Have your publications been controversial???? Was your research funded by government grants, or were you free to write what you wanted?
Since you know the process, answer this-----who gets the funding after their proposal to the appropriate government agency???
1) The guy who plans a research study with the goal of proving that fossil fuels have done absolutely nothing to change our climate, and asks for $250,000
2) The guy who proposes a study with the goal of showing that fossil fuels are causing an imminent climate change that will devastate our world and do so much sooner than expected, in fact, in our lifetimes, and asks for 50 million.
Be honest, we all know the answer to
that one
So much for 99% agreement----the number is a joke in and of itself----get 10 of us together in a room and you'll get 10 different opinions. Then there's the question of
just who is telling us this 99% agreement
Go look at the "consensus" among recently retired climatologists and those that are not getting US gov't funding---you get a completely different story.
Second to last, look at the accuracy of the Euro vs. the US weather prediction models for the last 20 years---I think you'll find the Euro model to be far, far more accurate. Why? Because for that time period the American model has incorporated CO2 emissions and global warming into its model. So, as a scientist, what does it tell you when a model with a pretty decent track record changes to add garbage into its prediction and then starts to fail? Again, be honest
And lastly---I'll repeat my question: Since half the country is no longer under 2 miles of ice as it was 20,000 years ago, since the climate has warmed, what kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive? And was Bedrock using nuclear power instead of burning fossil fuels? Put in perspective, that's why "global warming" is a joke and a political fraud that we get to pay for