(Video) This is what Prof. Yoav Yair, the Department of Natural and Life Sciences, the Open University says at the Ether Hidan and Hamada conference. According to him this science is usually attacked from the outside, by people who, for money, plant doubt in our hearts. And of course this is influenced by politics, agendas and media
"Climate science - science under attack". This was the title of the lecture by Prof. Yoav Yair from the Department of Natural and Life Sciences at the Open University, at the "Threats to Science and Reason" conference held by the Science website in collaboration with Hamada last week.
Prof. Yair who is also a veteran researcher in atmospheric sciences and who at the time served as the coordinator of the Madex project - the experiment performed by the late astronaut Ilan Ramon on the space shuttle Columbia.
The attack on the science of climate change is a cynical and insidious effort by certain sectors and stakeholders to attack the science of climate. Usually this science is attacked from the outside, for money they plant doubt in our hearts. And of course politics, agendas and communication.
The climate machine
In his lecture, Prof. Yair showed various graphs from NASA that represent the various components of the climate system - the atmosphere, the biosphere, the oceans, the ice, all of which are connected in a complex series of processes and reciprocal processes, which reinforce themselves and influence each other, when there is a coupling between different systems. "Some systems have a subtle and imperceptible effect, where only if we change something do we understand how the various components that make up the system react."
One of the first courses he heard on the subject was when he was a student at Tel Aviv University, in the words of the late Prof. Yehoyachin Yosef, who spoke of the feedback between albedo (reflectance of light) and warming: "There is a mechanism that discusses what will happen to the Earth if the ice caps are lost. As we know, the ice reflects light, 80% of the sunlight that hits the ice returns to space. If the ice is removed, more radiation will be absorbed by the surface, then the temperature will continue to rise, more ice will melt and disappear, less radiation will be returned to space and God forbid."
"The facts speak for themselves even from the simple anecdotes that we all feel that the temperatures are rising, for example "You don't need the sweater anymore... there used to be a real winter in Israel, and now it's not cold anymore". It was published only about two weeks ago An article by researchers from Berkeley where the researchers ran models and checked the results from before the industrial revolution (we started returning CO2 from fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - back into the atmosphere starting with the industrial revolution in 1850). There is no doubt about the warming and the ongoing trend of the temperature increase. To this day we see glaciers that disappeared in the Alps, an ice field that disappeared in Patagonia. The ice is melting, the evidence is hard to argue with and there is a lot of evidence.
"And yet the evidence does not convince a small and vocal handful who can be called deniers. There is a website called Skeptical Science which publishes responses to 140 different arguments put forward by deniers of reality, who claim that the climate is not warming or that if it is, then it is not our fault.
• "As for the argument 'The climate has changed in the past, there were ice ages, influential volcanoes, etc.. The answer is true, the climate responds to external constraints, but today man is the main force, by increasing the emission of greenhouse gases into the air.
• 'this is the sun': In the last 35 years the climate has warmed and the sun has weakened.
• 'There is no consensus, there is deep disagreement in the scientific community' 97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming and because of us (this is according to the IPCC reports). Not that I'm saying that consensus is a good thing, but not the kind where the best scientists in the world in a certain field come to an agreement on the facts and their meaning.
• 'It's not bad, warming up has good aspects as well.' Not true, the expected damages are enormous - agriculture, livestock, livestock, health.
• The weather is not "going crazy" as some forecasters are wont to say. This expression encodes in it some statement about randomness. But we see consistent evidence that it is becoming more extreme and that there are more extreme events such as floods and severe storms.
• 'Animals and plants will adapt to change'. Mass extinctions of many species that will not adapt are expected.
• 'In the seventies they talked about an ice age' Most of the scientific articles in the seventies predicted warming.
• 'The temperature measurements are not reliable, most of the measurements were in the city' - The trend is the same in urban and rural areas.
• 'Antarctic is gaining ice' Not true either. The ice is getting thinner according to satellite measurements.
• A common claim of the skeptics is Suppose there is global warming but the models are unable to predict climate change and hence the predictions are exaggerated. We run our mathematical models with the influence of humanity, see the observations in the graph marked in black and the models in red and the fit is not bad. Without the influence of human activity, the story is completely different (you can see in the graph that it remains stable and does not jump). The models reproduce well the climate from the pre-industrial era to the present day and therefore their predictions are reliable.
How do politicians use the tools at their disposal to question scientific findings that do not suit their agenda? Well, let's take for example the article published in Nature in 1999 by Mann and his colleagues which showed certain fluctuations of the global temperature around that line from the year 1000 to the 17th century, a period in which the Little Ice Age prevailed and from the 19th century we are in almost continuous warming, due to its shape known as "The hockey stick". Most of the scientists who reviewed the article agreed with the statement.
An American senator named Inhofe blamed the scientific establishment - and said that man-made warming is "the biggest fraud that has been played on the American people". In light of his demand, a congressional inspection committee was appointed to examine the article that investigated the reconstruction of temperature variation in the last thousand years by measuring tree rings and other methods. All the tests proved that Mann's article was valid and that his methods of analysis were correct, but the public discourse was fixed on the fact that there is a problem with the hockey stick,
The politics of climate change
Political power has been mobilized to deny the science of climate change. A group of senior scientists who served in administrations, usually Republican, with a far right orientation were paid to cast doubt, as revealed in the book Merchants of Doubt, they did it for the benefit of the tobacco industry in the 40s and 2005s when it fought the medical establishment to prove that there was no causal link between smoking and lung cancer and they managed to postpone the end for XNUMX years (it turns out that the legislation against the tobacco companies was passed only in XNUMX) they did the same with the refutation of the hole in the ozone, it cost the refrigerator and air conditioner industry tens of millions to stop producing the freons that destroy the ozone layer because in this fight they did not succeed. Those "doubt merchants" actually tried to support the military establishment in order to promote the Star Wars project in which they intended to produce lasers in space.
"They do this through personal humiliation of scientists, silencing, cynical use of the media and distorted data, they create the feeling in the American public that the scientists are still debating. To my great regret, they succeeded and did a targeted sabotage a year and a half ago to the Copenhagen Commission and intercepted what should have been the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. Today there is no agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientists need to speak more clearly
They succeeded in this with cunning and even vileness. They continue on their own and with a variety of techniques and tactics. Part of their success was due to the fact that it is difficult for us scientists to explain what happens in the atmosphere. When you try to explain that the addition of CO2 causes the greenhouse effect to increase, but this does not exactly describe the process because in a greenhouse the temperature rises simply because the place is closed, the heat cannot escape, it is not similar to the atmospheric process of absorbing radiation in the infrared range by the carbon dioxide and water vapor.
An example of an expression that the public does not understand is the expression positive feedback, in everyday language it is a good thing, 'I reinforce your words', if in ICE ALBEDO FEEDBACK the heating increases itself, this is known as positive feedback, but it is understood that in terms of the effect on the atmosphere it obviously has a negative effect .
Another problem is the role of the media, especially the internet media. We are in the age of the Cult of the amateur - today anyone can open a blog and write what they want, take things out of context, some of the machinery of the political apparatus recruits bloggers on behalf of them, they enter the scientific forums and attack the scientists in their own language. We are witnessing the researcher's loss of authority. The established media prefers conflicts and looks for disagreements, in order to generate headlines and interest in the name of a holy balance of bringing a position and opposing it (. there are hundreds of websites that contain misleading and false information and are directed out of political leanings).
In conclusion: we do not know everything. The system is complicated and there are things we don't know, but we know for sure that the temperature is rising and that the climate is warming, although it is not clear how much. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the mountains - it is not clear to what extent and when it will stop; The ocean level is rising - it is not clear whether the current rate will be maintained or increased and what the final level will be. There are feedback mechanisms that cool the atmosphere (for example, dust particles, we tested in an experiment with the late Ilan Ramon). Their strength is probably weak but unknown; The climate changes differently from place to place - how it will change in a specific place is still unclear. The amount of extreme weather events will increase - floods and droughts - the strength and frequency of typhoons and hurricanes is unknown. I can't say that the floods in Thailand or the snow in Central Park is a result of the warming, but we will see many more such events in the future. Likewise, we do not know about turning points and their significance and when we will reach them, but those who predict ahead, such as the European Union who prepared a temperature and precipitation map in 50 years, discover that all of southern Italy, Spain and Portugal will become deserts. I would jokingly recommend not investing in real estate on Israel's coastline, the rise is not something that is going to stop. It will be little by little until it is too high. In the Netherlands they are investing in raising the dams and there are coral islands that the sea is already threatening to cover.
As for the skeptics who refute, it is very easy to be a climate change skeptic when you are sitting in an air conditioned office but if your cattle are thirsty you feel the climate change very well.
48 תגובות
To all the climate deniers, simple logic, in the last 150 years man has burned, let's say, 30-40% of all the organic matter (coal and oil) created during the last 100-200 million years.
Do you think that the earth can contain such "trauma" without batting an eyelid for 150 years? You don't have to be a great scientist to understand this.
The 3000 scientists do not necessarily support the theory that man is a significant factor in global warming/climate change
And which of them do have an opinion that is no more professional than mine or yours, because most of them are not climate scientists, but rather experts in narrow scientific fields that mostly concern climate science only.
For example, they can be experts on ancient rivers, butterfly researchers, etc.
Those who sign the unqualified conclusion that man is a significant factor in global warming
This is the organizing committee of the convention who are bureaucrats (even if some of them have a scientific background) appointed to the position by the UN
which is the body that organizes the committee and its goal is to create a global carbon dioxide tax that will be a direct source of funding for the UN.
So they will not work on you!
they are b
It doesn't matter, I also spoke out on the subject, and I invited Prof. Yair.
Avi:
I think your answer was not the right answer.
In my opinion, the correct answer is that the lecture was given by Professor Yoav Yair and the decisiveness in the words is his.
It's not a blog, but it's not a New Age website either. On a scientific website there is only one truth and not everyone can choose their own truth.
Hello Abi, I wanted to point out that your insistence on certain topics greatly detracts from my enjoyment of reading the site. Please take to the intersection of your heart.
As far as I know this is not a blog, if you want to run a blog successfully not everyone cares about your opinions..
The answer - knowing about this report that will be published tonight.
The world's best scientists are sitting and researching the consequences of warming and there is one sitting with him who has air conditioning and food and everything he needs and claims that there is no need to worry about those who are not protected, because he is protected, what does he care about others.
A report signed by 62 climate scientists and other environmental scientists. The word you are asking for HUMAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE is in the title of the fourth slide
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX_slide_deck.pdf
Ok
If I do what you tell me, are you willing to sign for me that the desert will not eliminate the Somali?
Sign me if I do nothing the Somali situation will be worse?
Sign me if there will be more or less rain next year?
Even the great supporters of the theory do not pretend to understand the interactions and the multitude of processes that take place in the world of weather.
Danny Rupp said yesterday that this year a lower than average amount of rain is expected. He added that these predictions have a 60% chance of being right. If I tossed a coin I would have a 50% chance of being right (because each year can only have more or less rain than average). This means that an annual rainfall forecast has a slightly better chance than a coin toss.
What percentage are you convinced that you are right?
The choice is not between not investing and staying with the existing situation, sobin to invest and improve it, but to invest so that at most we stay with the existing situation.
And again, the status quo is comfortable for you, try saying to a Somali that the desert stole your land because the deserts have spread because of global warming.
I wanted to write something else
You seem to me to be really into things in the field of global warming, opinions on it, etc.
It is important for me to write that I am not at all convinced that the warming is not caused by humans. After all, we emit CO2. There is a possibility that this gas is the significant factor in the warming.
On the other hand there are so many other factors.
The interaction between all the factors is unclear and each additional study reveals another surprising layer of interaction.
This is an article you sent me or was directed to from something you sent me:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
It describes an opposite effect of the sun to what was known before. It was published in 2010. This means that a year ago it was still possible to write surprising articles that change the perspective on the field.
If you forced me to choose a side then I would announce that there is no connection between human activity and warming. Or actually that man is responsible for the entire warming. Depends on what day you would catch me.
But the supporters of the theory demand that I not choose a theoretical side but change my life and invest large sums of money in this theory. And for that you need to be more convinced than I am right now.
Oh long post maybe I should start a blog?
my father
say how old are you Why are you talking like that?
Which articles do I not read well?
So far I have been sent links to three opinion articles from NATURE magazine
And not even one link to a scientific article in the field.
How do you differentiate? Several people are listed on a scientific article. There is only one person on an opinion piece. For a scientific article references to all the sources on which it is based (and there should be many). An opinion article has one or two sources to which it refers.
And most importantly: an opinion piece does not undergo any criticism by scientists from the field.
In short I do not dispute that many scientists believe that warming is caused by humans.
they believe Or at least that's the side they chose after being cornered and forced to choose.
Most of them are still not convinced enough to write it explicitly in their scientific papers or to approve articles that explicitly write it.
It just shows the seriousness of the rest of your claims, especially your lack of understanding of reading scientific papers. If you don't understand a movie that didn't do it and who did it, how will you understand an article, only if you want them to write in it terms invented by deniers instead of scientific terms and if they are not written then it means that it is not man who is to blame for the warming?
In which class is reading comprehension studied?
my father
No need to attack me in every post but you are right
The film is not from the BBC and the BBC never broadcast it
It's my mistake
And besides, Uri, you can only be blocked for this lie. They show a clip from a BBC film explaining why there is warming and combine it with a film denying global warming to seemingly counter the claims in it. This does not make the deniers film part of the BBC film.
the way you are The film that illustrates the stupidity of Amnon Yitzhak And quoting excerpts from his film, it is a film by Amnon Yitzhak.
You have already been sent and referred to more than one, including the site you claimed you could not find anything on that talked about fuel burning. You're a lost cause and it's a shame to waste the little time I have on you.
The fact that deniers have money to make films is to save the bigger money that requires treatment of the problem. You already wrote in a previous comment that you don't have a problem with the current situation. You probably don't have a herd of cows in East Africa and you weren't affected by the drought there, or you didn't drown in the floods in Thailand.
And if you still insist, here are ten reasons why Man is the cause of warming and not natural phenomena.
Father, I don't understand where all the assumptions you make about me come from.
I did read one of the IPCC reports. But I was not convinced.
I am sure that the 2500 scientists who are involved in writing it are doing other important things and are not working all day on the next report. (:
Today I saw an interesting film which rejects the theory that humans cause warming (and there are quite a few scientists out of the 3% who you say oppose the theory). By the way, the movie is from the BBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
But I'm still open and waiting for you to send me scientific studies (if possible from NATURE or SCIENCE but I'll settle for any respectable magazine (say above IMPACT of 4) which accepts that humans are responsible for warming and says so explicitly.
Please send me at least one!
Maybe read an IPCC report sometime and go into one of the thousands of studies cited in it, it is not possible for thousands of researchers to invent things that everyone understands and sees clearly and only you are unable to understand (just as you failed to understand that whoever writes that burning fuels causes warming as a product of humanity as if cats also burn fuel). If you have a problem with reading comprehension, go to an expert to take care of it. We are a news site and should report what any reasonable person can understand from scientific articles, if you can't understand what 97% of scientists understand, then you probably need to go back to XNUMXth grade and study reading comprehension.
Are you comfortable with the world as it is? With the extreme weather conditions, with the floods (well you don't live in Thailand and maybe you weren't in Tel Aviv this morning - Israel has become a desert where the rain comes in floods), with the droughts in Africa, with the melting glaciers in the North Pole and Antarctica, with the disappearance of animals as a result of the destruction of habitats theirs to create forests.
I'm not really comfortable with the current situation. And now the question, should you submit to nature that will eliminate humanity and the problem or deal with the problems even if you don't like it.
Abby, I'll tell you where I think scientists came to the conclusion written in the report
I think trying to understand whether humans are responsible for warming or not is a very problematic attempt.
In the absence of the possibility to perform real experiments and the presence of dozens of different factors and many feedback processes that can influence and even reverse the warming trend, it is very difficult to understand what the world would look like without human-derived CO2 emissions.
I think the scientists are just giving their opinion on the matter. They read articles that do not point to humans in a clear way (because it is not possible to do this in an orderly scientific way) and synthesize the things they understand and see and estimate that the chance that humans are causing warming is high.
I am not at all sure that they are wrong.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to change the world because of their opinion. I'm just comfortable with the world as it is.
I am very disturbed by the angry tone against thinking people who dare to doubt that man is the main cause of global warming.
After all, there were ice ages and they disappeared - so of course in between there were warming periods that were not caused by humans.
Volcanic eruptions release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - I personally thought that people would get some proportions after the massive eruption in Iceland.
So let's put the arguments in order - there is no denial of warming, but there is absolutely no proof how much of this phenomenon is caused by humans and if warming would not have occurred even without human contribution.
On the other hand - man pollutes the water sources, destroys forests, produces huge amounts of waste - all these should be fought and educated, without diverting the debate to a phenomenon that is disputed.
Laurie,
If there are no such papers, then where did the 3,000 scientists who are members of the IPCC get their clue? Hint, they analyze and rank scientific articles published in the journals.
It is hard for me to believe that they invent articles that do not exist, apparently your bar is so high that no article - even if it is explicitly written in it - will not satisfy you.
Fan, indeed you are right, my mistake. On re-reading, they do claim that the warming is caused by gases emitted by humans.
Can you also find there links to scientific articles that support the conclusion?
Abby, I did understand that the link to the Daily Show is making fun of the publicists and their "skeptical" claims.
Skepticism as a principle is a welcome thing but it can be used for rebuttable arguments. "science. What does science want to get from you?"
I am also able to read scientific articles and am still waiting for some convincing article in the field…
Uri reads very creatively. If the term is not explicitly written, he does not understand it, what is more, the term MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING is a term used mainly by deniers. The scientists simply say warming.
Uri, in the link you gave (not the Daily Show) it is explicitly written that the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is due to the burning of fuels and that it is the cause of warming.
Last time I checked these are the humans who burn fuels.
Thank you very much father!
These are super important things.
Uri, what a waste of my time. If you are not able to read a scientific article properly because the proofs are there at every turn, but you put on very dark glasses and do not see them.. but leave a scientific article, are you not able to understand sarcasm? The Daily Show is an excellent program. Did you realize they were laughing at science? Not true, they laugh at the Republicans who despise science and try to show what would happen if they were right. It's a satire show something like Wonderland.
hi father
I went over your link to the Skeptics site. I did not find a single link to a scientific article supporting the claim.
In addition, I went through the list of magazines and organizations that support the claim of the connection between man and global change. I randomly chose one organization (which seems the most serious and connected) - the National Center for Atmospheric Research - http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
There was not a single word written about humans on their website. There were general explanations about the various factors, but they certainly did not draw the "obvious" conclusion that humans are responsible for the change. Maybe the others do infer it, but I didn't check.
In any case, of course, skepticism can be a religion in itself: (:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights—science—what-s-it-up-to-
Uri, I will answer you when I return from an event. Anyway, for me, as a scientific website editor, the Science and Nature reference is the only thing I need to keep. They are free of politics, and if science determines something, it is the truth and not politics.
hi father
I don't know Alan Leshner or Rick Perry. It is clear to me that there is politics here and on both sides.
People like Al Gore are driven by political agendas as well as people in the oil industries and media people who know that prophecies of rage sell newspapers.
All of these may be motivated by good motives and be sure of their righteousness. When I hear them speak with absolute self-conviction they seem to me like greased politicians.
Without any cynicism I would love to see articles that support the human connection to warming.
And yet the systems in question are so complicated that I don't believe it is possible to really predict what will happen or what can be done
In any case, it seems to me that we will both die before anything changes for better or worse (:
Uri, go to the Skeptical Sciences website (link in the article) and you will see that there is an answer to all your doubts, backed up by countless references.
For example the article that answers the claim that there is no consensus that the warming is man-made.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Read the article at the end - the scientific organizations that support that man is the cause of warming
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geoscience Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
If that were the case, then Alan Leshner would not have written what he wrote to the Tennessee legislators, and besides, I asked for patience from those who have access to come up with some sample studies for you.
The doubting of first-rate scientists, 3,000 of whom are members of the IPCC and sign its reports, stems, as Prof. Yair explicitly says, from political motives. It was not scientists but politicians who used it to thwart the Copenhagen Convention. The damage done will take hundreds of years to repair and you and I will no longer be here when the earth returns to its normal state. You must have seen Rick Perry promise to close the Environmental Protection Agency. Why exactly does this office bother him?
there's nothing to do. It's a given situation and that's it.
my father
Everything you wrote is true
And yet the simple conclusion that humans are responsible for warming is probably not simple at all. I did read several articles about global warming and I also searched in different ways for articles that link humans to the phenomenon but I came up with nothing.
I understand that this is controversial and very difficult to prove but the level of conviction you and others in the field implies that such articles should be common even if there are also articles contradicting them. In practice, it is not easy to find such scientific articles.
One more thing for Uri, are there any missing articles referring to the CO2 greenhouse effect? Is it necessary to add every time that the addition of CO2 originates from human activity since the industrial revolution?
More links
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html on a conference of deniers
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html An article from which it is clear what the position of Science and Nature is regarding the changes in the congressional position on man-made global warming as written by Alan Leshner, the publisher of Science (and published in Nature so that the position is accepted by both magazines).
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html The Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming.”
And besides, many articles on the science website cite studies, the latest of which was two weeks ago
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-world-indeed-warming-2310114/
I added to my previous response.
And I wonder, did you bother to read all seven thousand articles to determine that no one links man to warming.
I just don't have access to the full material, but I will ask people who do research at universities and have access to check and send a sample.
Indeed, many articles talk about the phenomenon, but very few of them link the person to it. Such a search that I did a few years ago and that did not turn up even one article in a respectable magazine made me give up in the camp of the skeptics
Hope you can attach such a link
In a quick search in Science, the phrase GLOBAL WARMING yielded 7,104 results.
http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q-1=&sp-q=global+warming&sp-p=all&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=date_descending&include-collections=journals_nature%2Ccrawled_content&exclude-collections=journals_palgrave%2Clab_animal&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&submit=go
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science, has a link to a letter they sent to a senator who wanted to teach the debate in the fields of evolution and global warming, they wrote to him that there is no such debate among scientists and that trying to teach the differences of opinion that exist in the public will confuse the students and not educate them
http://www.aaas.org/gr/docs/11-03-02Tenn_evolution.pdf
Well spoken
hi father
I would be happy to see links to articles in Nietzsche and Science that claim that the source of global warming is man
Thanks
To the point, that warming accelerates other human effects, such as deforestation and the elimination of other habitats
My father, HH!!
Abby, you sound like a religious fanatic.
Father, it is precisely because of his science that "warming" is taken seriously, humans are destroying nature in a million ways.
And besides Ron, we've heard your nonsense before and the endless English quotes. A block is a block and you don't dare put a single word in here anymore. Go find another truth and write there "truth" to your heart's content.
What's the problem, Prof. Yoav Yair said that the consensus covers 97% of the Akham scientists. It follows that there are 3% who have mistakes. Most do not doubt warming but think it has several sources. I do not go into the identity of the researchers who are on this side of the fence or those who speak for them who think they are in this 3%.
The Knowledge site is not bound by the rules of the Broadcasting Authority or the other authority to balance every article in any field. If you read the BBC audit report there is an explanation there why equal time should not be given to the opposite claims because it misleads the public into thinking that this is a debate in which the ratio is half and half. And this is what the global warming deniers are trying to achieve.
The only obligation I have is to follow the scientific consensus as expressed in Science and Nature. And to this day, that's the consensus. The balance is achieved by having enough other sites, including those who have a different opinion.
Come on, if people continue to smoke cigarettes, why should the climate change?
"I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion."
Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself."
Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact."
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another....Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so...Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot."
Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
interesting.