Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What lab experiment can we perform to verify this statement?
Or that same molecule that will never get any warmer than the ir it absorbed from the surface, meaning, can’t ever make the surface warmer. Hmmmmmatmosphere more than a molecule that absorbs weak IR.
We need people to produce food, grow food, drink, furnaces, refrigerators, pumps, forget about the convenience products like cars phones and energy and on and on, ectceteraDisagree. There are fresh water shortages all over the world. When humans consume too much of nature's fresh water, it takes life from upstream, and leaves plants dry enough to burn. This is the first sign. Desalination is a band aid. Human population growth needs to stop now. It cascades worse exponentially if we do not.
There has to be wildlife, farms, and walled off areas. Too much human encroachment is stripping nature of life, and that is not a good trend at all.
The two demographics having 10 kids per couple - latino and muslim - are the ones migrating everywhere. Hello.
Amazon forest caught fire a few years ago. Way too many people consuming that water. So many they keep ending up here.
Shut the door. Absolutely make it a crime for any leader, especially a religious leader, to preach having huge families.
Tax code should encourage two kids, tolerate three kids, and punish anyone who has a fourth or more.
Leaving this problem to Bill Gates, Fauci, Soros, and Netanyahu will get a truly FASCIST answer and already is...
We need people to produce food, grow food, drink, furnaces, refrigerators, pumps, forget about the convenience products like cars phones and energy and on and on, ectcetera
All of the people on the planet fit into Texas! What is the issue?We have plenty of people. We have too many people. Technological improvements mean less people do more.
What we do have are religious leaders who only care about growing the flock, and hence stoke overpopulation by preaching large families.
All of the people on the planet fit into Texas! What is the issue?
people don't live around fresh water supply? The Great Lakes carry quite a lot of fresh water.Same bullshit. People need to eat. There needs to be a food chain for that to happen.
WHY are there fresh water shortages globally?
Aren't humans part of nature? Still trying to figure out what you think humans are exactly?Because too many humans are taking too much fresh water from nature,
RELIGION is driving human overpopulation. Religion is the problem. The solution is to make it a DEATH PENALTY OFFENSE for any religious leader to advocate large families, literally by going inside the church or mosque and capping off the leader right in front of the flock, the ONLY LANGUAGE religion really understands...
Imagine if you are a "Climate Scientist" and went against the narrative that humans cause Climate Change? Your career would be over. I'm surprised its as low as 99.9%.
Chris Landsea is still considered one of the world's foremost experts in hurricanes ... and he still works for NOAA even though he refutes Climate Change because of a lack of scientifically accurate data ...
Most folks graduate college with either an Atmospheric Science degree or a Meteorology degree ... for those who can't handle the heavy math involved in these professions are allowed to take a second year of statistics instead of a third year of calculus ... and get a degree in climatology ...
The OP lies ... she lies like drinking water ... you don't honestly believe 999 out of every 1,000 scientific papers confirm climate change ... when in fact none of them do ... just account for all the papers about biology ...
ETA: Sharks fan here ... but the household is all FREAKED out about the Preds in the Conference finals ... woot ... ripping Hurricanes new assholes ...
I don't see anyone ripping Carolina a new asshole.
Chris Landsea is still considered one of the world's foremost experts in hurricanes ... and he still works for NOAA even though he refutes Climate Change because of a lack of scientifically accurate data ...
Landsea's ONLY difference with the IPCC's conclusions (and that of all the world's climate scientists on whose work it's based) is the magnitude of the effect global warming affects the strength of hurricanes. Landsea fully admits the the atmosphere and the oceans are warming and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.Most folks graduate college with either an Atmospheric Science degree or a Meteorology degree ... for those who can't handle the heavy math involved in these professions are allowed to take a second year of statistics instead of a third year of calculus ... and get a degree in climatology ...
The OP lies ... she lies like drinking water ... you don't honestly believe 999 out of every 1,000 scientific papers confirm climate change ... when in fact none of them do ... just account for all the papers about biology ...
ETA: Sharks fan here ... but the household is all FREAKED out about the Preds in the Conference finals ... woot ... ripping Hurricanes new assholes ...
does not consider that global warming has a strong influence on hurricanes: "global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds but only by 1 percent or 2 percent".
Nonsense.
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
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.
Like 18th Century England? ... that's why we have such diversity here in America ... we're all non-conformists who escaped death by settling in the American Colonies ... rather than be killed by George III ... the bastard ...
But if you have 2/3's each house of Congress and 3/4's the States in your back pocket ... go ahead and set up State Religion ... may I suggest Mormonism, home grow doctrines are always better ... else, how you gonna convince the stupid to follow the laws? ...
Some of the most accurate predictions have been done by the fossil fuel industry which they kept hidden for decades.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.
AND
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.
So that’s why the right has such an infatuation with arming everyone ? To save their water ?Human overpopulation reaches a "point of no return" except extinction of humans. We aren't that close but we are in a STAGE 1 and that is the fresh water shortages globally, which, if they continue to get worse, will kill off more and more of the food chain, and then....
So that’s why the right has such an infatuation with arming everyone ? To save their water ?
