More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming

[Crick]

Human history goes back at least 300,000 years and it was warmer early in the interglacial and much warmer in the previous interglacial period.

Your lies have been getting stupider and stupider.

" Homo sapiens, the first modern humans, evolved from their early hominid predecessors between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago." So NOT "at least 300,000 years"

First humans: Homo sapiens & early human migration (article) | Khan Academy

Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

www.khanacademy.org

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-mean-temperatures-over-the-last-500-000-years-11_fig3_356606430

And, for a closer look at that last peak on the right:

The black hockey stick at the right end on this graph (Reconstruction by Marcott) is higher than any prior point on the graph. Looking at the other graph, we see that this peak is equal or warmer to any point back to ~330,000 years ago, well before the appearance of homo sapiens. The average for 2023 will be above the tip of that black hockey stick. It WILL be the hottest year in human history. Sorry if that doesn't fit your pleasant self-delusion.

 

[ding]

Tell that to the billions of crabs lost in Alaska.

You mean the ones that migrated? Happens every interglacial period.

 

[ding]

" Homo sapiens, the first modern humans, evolved from their early hominid predecessors between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago." So NOT "at least 300,000 years"

First humans: Homo sapiens & early human migration (article) | Khan Academy

Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

www.khanacademy.org

View attachment 856070

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-mean-temperatures-over-the-last-500-000-years-11_fig3_356606430

And, for a closer look at that last peak on the right:

View attachment 856071
The black hockey stick at the right end on this graph (Reconstruction by Marcott) is higher than any prior point on the graph. Looking at the other graph, we see that this peak is equal or warmer to any point back to ~330,000 years ago, well before the appearance of homo sapiens. The average for 2023 will be above the tip of that black hockey stick. It WILL be the hottest year in human history. Sorry if that doesn't fit your pleasant self-delusion.

Your "global" temperature reconstruction doesn't match the fluctuation of Greenland ice cores.

And your temperature spike doesn't match the prediction of associated temperature of CO2.

 

[ding]

And this temperature graph is BS because the last interglacial period had 26ft higher seas so its peak temperature was 2C warmer than today. Not the same as your fake news graph shows.

 

[otto105]

SO F*#@CKING WHAT? Are you saying that an anthropomorphic influence on the climate is any different from one emanating directly from the crust? Does it matter whether gases in the atmosphere are from sea bed emanations, tundra thawing, volcanism, cow farts, industry, or space asteroids?



The effect is all the same. These are all NATURAL and expected processes which occur given the time. And the Earth has shown that every occurrence and change over the eons has not only been recovered from and adapted to every time, but in fact was actually BENEFICIAL to life.

Without the Permian Extinction and other events, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY. For all you know, the present warming of the Earth may not only be necessary, but very beneficial in both staving off the next ice age permitting life to evolve on to something far better for us or than us!

In every instance that man has interfered with nature thinking himself wiser and knowing better, we have been proven wrong and the results disastrous.

So, if we don't commit environmental suicide things won't get better for us on earth?

 

[otto105]

You mean the ones that migrated? Happens every interglacial period.

They migrated where?

And show your proof.

 

[ding]

They migrated where?

And show your proof.

Cooler water. What do you think happened to them? They disappeared in a poof of CO2?

 

[Crick]

Are you saying that an anthropomorphic influence on the climate is any different from one emanating directly from the crust?

No. No one is saying anything about anthropomorphic influences on climate.

Does it matter whether gases in the atmosphere are from sea bed emanations, tundra thawing, volcanism, cow farts, industry, or space asteroids?



The effect is all the same.

Correct.

These are all NATURAL and expected processes which occur given the time.

Except "industry" and, really, cow farts, since without humans there wouldn't be NEARLY as many cows farting.

And the Earth has shown that every occurrence and change over the eons has not only been recovered from and adapted to every time, but in fact was actually BENEFICIAL to life.

The five previous mass extinctions tell us it was NOT always beneficial to life.

Without the Permian Extinction and other events, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY.

That doesn't mean the Permian Extinction was beneficial to life.

For all you know, the present warming of the Earth may not only be necessary, but very beneficial in both staving off the next ice age permitting life to evolve on to something far better for us or than us!

For all you know it could end up with the entire planet being sterilized. Trying to argue that we should not respond to a known threat is neither rational nor rationalizable.

In every instance that man has interfered with nature thinking himself wiser and knowing better, we have been proven wrong and the results disastrous.

Look at the productivity of human agriculture. Look at our defeat of diseases. Look at air conditioning, heating and refrigeration. Those are all interferences in nature and their results have not been disastrous. Perhaps not perfect, but not disastrous.

 

[Libby von H]

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

AND

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

---

The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.

That is nonsense but the worst part is your ascription of high regard to peer review !!!!

The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science by Christopher Welser​

But start with John Ioannidis’s 2005 article “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

 

[Crick]

That is nonsense but the worst part is your ascription of high regard to peer review !!!!

The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science by Christopher Welser​

You left out the link but this article is available at The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science by Christopher Welser | Report | NAS. It is a product of the National Association of Scholars, not the National Academy of Science whose acronym they've borrowed. Wikipedia's article on them starts out like this:

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is an American 501(c)(3) non-profit politically conservative education advocacy organization.[2][3] It advocates against multiculturalism, diversity policies, and against courses focused on race and gender issues.

That is not an organization focussed on the issues that most often concern scholars, but a conservative political advocacy organization who allowed some PR specialist to make up their title.

This article is nothing more than a political diatribe on academics and scientific research. The political themes and biases in the article are blatant. The conclusion is nothing more than some vague advice to be more careful with statistics. Pointless bullshit.

But start with John Ioannidis’s 2005 article “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Based on what I found in your first article, I'm going to put this off while I run some errands. It doesn't look promising. I have used links to Vox.com myself once or twice, but it is definitely a sensationalist website.

 

[jc456]

A cult operates from a single leader.

Scientific consensus is reached to peer reviewed evidence.

Money is where one finds the leader!! Get an education

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

99.9%

 

[ding]

99.9%

1 deg C for every doubling of CO2. Not 5 deg C. 1 deg C.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1 deg C for every doubling of CO2. Not 5 deg C. 1 deg C.

Oops, wrong poster, I think.

 

[ding]

Oops, wrong poster, I think.

Not at all.

99.9% of scientists agree that every time the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles the atmospheric temperature increases by 1C.

 

[Robert W]

I would think that the victimhood for which the lot of you live and breathe would begin to engender a little self-examination, a bit of wondering whether or not you're really taking the high road here. And accusing Democrats of seeking excess power when Donald Trump, with majority support from the Republican Party, is promising to throw out the Constitution, jail his political opponents and dedicate his next term to the enactment of retribution is ignorant delusion.

That "rush to rule" is simply the drive to form stable, enduring societies. Humans are ruled by laws and the social structure that makes those laws work. The reason your conclusions are so flawed is that your premises are false to the bone. You just posted an extensive text by Judith Curry, whom you apparently respect as an expert on the climate, yet her views do not seem to have shaken your belief that there is no global warming, that the whole thing is a hoax by evil Democrats.

You need to look at your own thought processes; at whom YOU are blaming for this issue and whether or not there is actually ANY objective evidence to support the views you've chosen to adopt.

You have to be a bit scared since it will be soon that the Republicans will recover being in charge and all the time you pee your pants in abject fear.

Sorry but that will not impact on me.

For people like your kind, here is an excellent book about government

 

[Robert W]

Not at all.

99.9% of scientists agree that every time the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles the atmospheric temperature increases by 1C.

Isn't it logarithmic?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not at all.

99.9% of scientists agree that every time the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles the atmospheric temperature increases by 1C.

False.

 

[Orangecat]

Tell that to the billions of crabs lost in Alaska.

We need government funded crab GPS systems ASAP!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We need government funded crab GPS systems ASAP!

We need functional adults that understand the dangers of undermining the food chain.