That's because Americans are more likely to throw money at a problem, real or perceived, than the Russians, Chinese, or most anyone else.
Take a pot and put it under the water faucet and run water into it, and set up a hose and a pump that removes water from the pot just as quickly as the faucet pours the water into the pot.
That is equilibrium.
Now start adding a teaspoon of water to the pot every few seconds. The pot will begin to fill. It will fill slowly, but it will fill because the pump removing the water cannot increase its pumping capacity.
Do you see? It does not matter that the teaspoon is adding far less water than the faucet that is pouring continuously - the pump can't handle the amount added by the teaspoons, and the teaspoons of water being constantly added is throwing the system out of equilibrium, and eventually the pot will fill and overflow.
So it goes with the climate - it does not matter that there are greater sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases - what matters is that without our worldwide civilization's added output of CO2, the system was generally in balance except for the occasional great volcanic eruption or the sun putting out much more or much less energy. Even though the planet's natural processes can absorb that greater amount of naturally-produced CO2, it is not able to handle the added amount of CO2 that our civilization is emitting...and that, sir, is why the CO2 level is rising to a point where it hasn't been in all human history.
No, it really doesn't. The so called "science" on this is now propaganda.
addressed by people that believe in AGW and there is not a consenses by any stretch of the imagination.
The Latest Meteorologist Survey Destroys The Global Warming Climate 'Consensus' - Forbes
not to mention the nipcc is gaining ground in scientific circles.
if the consensus was so complete and not at issues then you wouldn't have climate scientists pulling their names and work from the report due to the IPCC corrupting the data.
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report | Climate Depot
the only consensus is imaginary to alarmists to try and shut down debate.
You are free to disagree, and that is how Science is done,by disagreement, not by consensus.
The reality is there is no real consensus among Scientist, "an extremely broad understanding",
might be a better statement, but does not carry the same weight.
The way the sampling was done, would put myself in the warming camp, which I am not.
Sadly, these days science has become infiltrated and corrupted by money. Politicians have figured out how to virtually launder money through scaring people with made-up science. That's the case with AGW.
This is the same science that has people popping pills at an alarming rate. The drug companies are making a fortune on the same scare tactics. People don't need to take 10 percent of what they are taking.
And remember 25 years ago when we were all going to drop like flies from AIDS? What happened to that?
There's a sliver of the scientific world still working as it should. But so much of it is purely bent on greed and political manipulation.
Science hasn't even determined that CO2 causes global warming. Might want to prove that first.
Yes, science HAS determined it. But we can't force you to accept the science, just as we can't force you to accept evolution. You've decided that AGW can't be true...and a lot of that probably has to do with the fact that in your right-wing echo chamber, all you'll hear is AGW is bad and wrong and a great hoax being used to foist higher taxes and socialism upon all the freedom-loving capitalists out there.
Which has a lot to do with why only 6% of scientists are Republican, btw.
Hook, line, and sinker.
Scientists who want the government to reward them handsomely for research tend to be Democrats? You don't say.
If any consensus exists, it would have to be very vague,No, it is not done by exaggerating disagreement. And consensus does give us a clear idea what the science does and doesn't support.
This may not sound much like hedging their bets,Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed
1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C
for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5.
Hook, line, and sinker.
Scientists who want the government to reward them handsomely for research tend to be Democrats? You don't say.
I'll believe global warming is a crisis when the people who say it's crisis start acting like there's a crisis rather than flying jumbo jets all over creation to go golfing with a retinue of 300 people.
On the other hand, maybe I still won't believe it.
only because it shows that there is no consensus.Forbes is deceptive.
your other claim is also rather limited to a single source. Doesn't seem to be shared by anything close to objective.
Certainly, there is global warming going on, it's just not man's fault. Temperatures fluctuate, we can look at just the last 12,000 years and see they've gone up and down and it hasn't been our fault then either. Liberals want to blame man for everything, they want us to be responsible because they don't like the idea of being powerless. It's an emotional thing for them, not a rational thing.
View attachment 67166762
yep when compared to history this warming period is a blip on the radar.
If any consensus exists, it would have to be very vague,
something like,
Do you believe Human activity has played a roll in the observed warming?
If most people thought about it, the answer would have to be yes.
If the questions got more specific, like,
Do you believe if CO2 leaves hit 560 ppm, the ECS will be between 3 and 4.5 C?
You would likely see Scientist start to hedge their bets, like the IPCC has already done.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
This may not sound much like hedging their bets,
but remember the center of the predicted range, is 3 C.
only because it shows that there is no consensus.
and your link is nothing more than a alarmist website. forbes has way more credibility than so called climate science watch
pot meet kettle.
It exists, and it's not that vague. Look I've read a lot, and talked to scientists at universities across the country. There is not the disagreement you suggest.
You are correct about the money, but there are other forms of compensation.Hate to tell you, but generally scientists tend not to be in it for the money.
You don't spend all that time in grad school and getting a fairly modest academic salary focusing upon money, especially grant money they pretty much goes to pay for equipment and grad students, not champagne and caviar....
So what exactly does this consensus agree on?It exists, and it's not that vague. Look I've read a lot, and talked to scientists at universities across the country. There is not the disagreement you suggest.
Um, can you show that most scientists work for the government? Didn't think so. That's just another strawman that y'all have bought into just to give you an excuse to ignore AGW.
And btw, it's not just the climatologists. 90% of ALL scientists (including oceanologists, geologists, zoologists, botanists, et al who see the effects of AGW in their own fields) - and every national science foundation on the planet - agree that AGW is very real.
But since the liberals agree with the scientists, well, THAT means that all those scientists must be wrong! It's a grand conspiracy, y'see...hundreds of thousands of scientists and untold millions of liberals are all in on the conspiracy, and we've successfully kept it secret from all those conservatives for all these years....
It was a helluva lot warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now. But elections weren't won based on that day's climate, so it didn't make the Medieval internet.
Today's AGW cultish zealotry is akin to radical Islam. It is not to be questioned, for it is desperately needed to keep the big-government train on its tracks.
It's all quite transparent.
Most global warming is caused by an increased solar cycle and increased volcanic activity. I'm still waiting to see the crazy liberals claim that man is responsible for the sun and volcanoes.
So what exactly does this consensus agree on?
Clearly if it exists, they must have agreement on something.
If it is not a vague concept, then it must be a concise concept.
No, because it is down right deceptive. Btw, Fobres is not a scientific journal. You do realize thus right?
And no, I use multiple sources, including peer reviewed sources.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?