Yup, now any severe weather event can easily be attributed to "climate change" and most people won't bother to even think about it. Major snow storms - climate change. Heat wave - climate change. Cold snap - climate change. Drought - climate change. Flooding - climate change. The science is settled after all. That's what science is about - not questioning anything and accepting things because people tell you they're settled. Mostly though - we need to shut up anyone who questions the science that is settled. Dangerous questions could be asked.
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think it's a majority that are in complete denial. They think it is being exaggerated. It doesn't help matters when you have people predicting the end of the world by a certain year and we reach that point and we're still here. (Looking at you Al Gore) Both sides need to be honest
Just like when anything falls it can be attributed to gravity. Drop an apple: Gravity. Fall out of a plane: Gravity. No one wants to talk about the balloon that floats away. Where's your gravity now scientists. Don't worry about it buddy, someone had to be the last one to believe the earth was flat.
Are you having reading comprehension problem too? I seriously hope that's not the case. I will reiterate what was said in the study: Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007). What this says is that, among the climate scientists with published papers, 97+% of them say there are human induced global warming. Human induced global warming mostly means, the global warming induced by [greenhouse gas.] - there, I said "mostly" because there are other factors like GW inducing [human activity.] - The biggest contributor to the human-induced increase of greenhouse gas is the use of fossil fuel. So - in that regard, Yes. They are all in unison when they are talking about this one. No scientist is raising a question about the definition of AGW, [which means its meaning is already an accepted definition] and the root cause of it [again, that part is accepted] but I don't think any scientist is suggesting the [abandoning] of fossil fuel. They are suggesting [decrease] of greenhouse gas emission [and thus, decrease of fossil fuel usage.] Scientists know it's all about economy behind as well; probably better than anyone else. When Prof. Fleishmann told me to stay away from the fusion research [when I was undergrad years ago] he said so with the view to the economics. To summarize bluntly, you COULD generate sufficient energy with nuclear fusion even back then. Just, it would have cost about 10x more than it would have with fossil fuel. P.S. I really have to wonder whether you understand the term AGW to begin with. P.S. 2. The best part for me was: Do 97% agree that AGW has the same effect? Let me say it was definitely "cringe-worthy." AGW will induce these effect, to the agreement of scientific community: Anticipated effects include warming global temperature, rising sea levels, changing precipitation, and expansion of deserts in the subtropics. Warming is expected to be greater over land than over the oceans and greatest in the Arctic, with the continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely changes include more frequent extreme weather events including heat waves, droughts, heavy rainfall with floods and heavy snowfall; ocean acidification; and species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes. Effects significant to humans include the threat to food security from decreasing crop yields and the abandonment of populated areas due to rising sea levels. I have not found any serious paper that passed the peer review, which suggested otherwise yet. Bring me the paper - I will look into it. [If it passed peer review, it must have some merit. Or it will be shredded into pieces in peer review process.]
I think you are wrong. Just look at the other convo I have going on. That's the mentality. Plus $$$$ http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/republicans-united-on-climate-change
The very nature of science is to question things. Telling people the science is settled is just a way to shut people up. BTW, Newton wasn't quite right about gravity.
Have you ever farted underwater? What happened to your fart? Did that sink? Have you wondered why your fart didn't sink but rose up? [Water is heavier so fills that space, effectively "falling" into that region.] And helium-filled balloon? Same phenomenon. [That's gravity for you. Where is your non-gravity argument now?] If you delved deeper, you should have found that, the balloon you blew to fill up doesn't fly away, but this special balloon that was filled from the helium tank did. Have you wondered why that's the case? [Carbon dioxide is heavier than the most generic atmospheric gas, which is 70% nitrogen. Helium is much lighter. There is your gravity. Happy now?] ================================================================== P.S. Looks like I had a snap reply, when I shouldn't have. My apology for that. The term [climate change] was introduced because of these right-leaning morons that deny the global warming, especially in the face of the MOUNTAINS of evidences. Same thing happened in science all over the place. Take the [resonance imaging] for instance. Its technical name [or original one with precise definition] is Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Soon it became NMRI, then - due to the public fear of anything "nuclear" it became MRI. Soon there followed a group of people claiming these effect of magnetic field in [cancer] so now we even dropped the M part - effectively renaming the same procedure as [resonance imaging.] And I am not kidding about these. [That's not the end of it; for instance, the same kind of people will cry against vaccine if their attention was on it. The general lack of scientific understanding among American public is appalling to put it very lightly.]
I just bought a helium tank for my daughter's bridal shower next Saturday. For the balloons. That's all I got. _
And I'm sure the scientists today aren't quite right about everything having to do with climate change. It doesn't make it any less real just as Newtons shortcomings doesn't make gravity any less real.
Any climate change that exists will likely be quickly corrected by ASI when it is born. If the ASI isn't used to eliminate humans, we should be good. If not, well, then it wasn't climate change that did us in anyway.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump broke the rules during Thursday night's Fox News GOP debate by consulting with his campaign manager during a commercial break, according to a CNN report. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271913-trump-broke-debate-rules-report
