Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made 1105

Posted by Soulskill
from the but-it-was-cold-outside-yesterday dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global warming. The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate their own studies, with nearly identical results. In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so that anybody can check their results. From the article: '... a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans, "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from U.S. Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve "balance," the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what's causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:19AM (#43751863) Homepage Journal
    Too bad the scientific method is no match for the stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears-and-yell-la-la-la-la-la method.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Yeah! It's like saying that 97% of priest believe in god anyway. Plus that number means nothing, it would be foolish to say that human activity has no consequence, though what matters is how much.

      Also, science isn't about democracy. More than 60% of the scientists didn't believe in the movements of continents in the 50ies, yet it is admitted now.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:00AM (#43752487)

        Secondly, they don't all believe in the same god.
        Thirdly, they don't have any evidence of their god being real.

        Indeed in all ways noted, the deniers (such as yourself) are more like the priests.

        97% of deniers believe AGW is a fraud.
        They don't believe in the same reason for that being true. And they have no evidence of their personal belief in their stated reason for it being a fraud.

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:10AM (#43752619) Homepage Journal
        it would be foolish to say that human activity has no consequence, though what matters is how much.

        That has always been my opinion as well. We know the destructive capabilities we have on the environment (Love Canal, Bhopal, Agent Orange) as well as the general effects we have (heat islands around cities, depletion of water aquifers, increased desertification due to forest removal, etc), the question is, how much of what we do is causing the effects we see now? Is everything our fault, is this part of a natural cycle, or some combination thereof?

        What's funny is we routinely see news articles where farmers are talked to and almost without exception they all say climate change is real and if you don't believe it, ask a farmer. Considering the conservative nature of most farmers, one would highly doubt they would be saying such things if they didn't believe it.
        • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by atriusofbricia (686672) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:19AM (#43752761) Journal

          What's funny is we routinely see news articles where farmers are talked to and almost without exception they all say climate change is real and if you don't believe it, ask a farmer. Considering the conservative nature of most farmers, one would highly doubt they would be saying such things if they didn't believe it.

          Yeah, but you're forgetting the selection bias of the media who generally whole heartily believe in anthropocentric global warming. They are far less likely to put a farmer on that says that climate change might be happening but he doesn't believe humans are the cause.

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Funny)

        by Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:52AM (#43753313)
        I agree, and it goes further than just priests! Here are some interesting factoids for you:
        97% of the neo-nazi's believe they are superior to black people
        97% of the Black Panthers agree to the fact that they are superior to white people
        97% of the children believe in Santa
        97% of paranoid believe they are being followed
        97% of the homoeopaths believe in homoeopathy
        97% of the astrologists believe in astrology
        97% of the KKK think lynchmobs are a good thing
        97% of the intelligent design gang are absolutely convinced that God made it all
        97% of all the interviewed Zen budists were convinced it is possible to clap with one hand
        97% of the paganist movement think sandals are fashionable
        97% of the physicians didnt believe in washing their hands before doing surgery
        97% of the politicians think they are doing some great things

        In case you are wondering... Yes, I am a 3 percenter!
      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by BasilBrush (643681) on Friday May 17, 2013 @11:17AM (#43753659)

        Yeah! It's like saying that 97% of priest believe in god anyway.

        This just reveals your wooly thinking. TFA doesn't say "97% of scientists believe in AGW". It's 97% of scientific papers. i.e. 97% of the ways of examining the question scientifically resulted in a conclusion that AGW is real. Scientific method, not belief.

        The only believers in this are the deniers. People who's belief outweighs even the most overwhelming weight of scientific evidence.

    • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:35AM (#43752113)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz read on this guy, its not LALALALA it is a concentrated, orchestrated, and payed for effort to hide the truth to the benefit of a few very wealthy individuals http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/the-koch-brothers-exposed-20120420.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bondsbw (888959)

      And this goes for both sides.

      One side says that global warming exists and is manmade. They go too far and decide that your personal car and incandescent lights are solely to blame. You are selfish and should give back to society and the government for your misdeeds.

      One side looks at that stance as foolish. But they go to far and reject global warming completely in an effort to distance themselves from their political opponents. And then when shown results that contradict their position, they say that it

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)

        by JobyOne (1578377) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:04AM (#43752545) Homepage Journal

        You're right with your point that cars and incandescents aren't "SOLELY" to blame...but with that one little adjective you're reduced to tilting at straw men.

        FACTS: Worldwide 15% of CO2 emissions are from personal vehicles, and that number is rising. The United States accounts for half of that. Our houses use so much energy that they produce twice the CO2 that our cars even do. That means American personal cars and homes produce between 1/4 and 1/5 of the world's CO2 emissions. Given our wealth and the relative ease with which we can invest in energy-saving technology, that makes them pretty good places to start trying to improve efficiency.

        If you want to reduce greenhouse gases, improving the efficiency of American cars and homes is important by any reasonable standard. That's a fact. No politics involved.

        Manufacturers would also be a good place to look, but since publicly traded companies can only look as far ahead as their next earnings report I imagine you've drunk their Kool-Aid and would start shrieking "OMG TEH JOB CREATORZ" at the slightest whiff of regulation.

        • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by PapayaSF (721268) on Friday May 17, 2013 @11:13AM (#43753609) Journal

          That means American personal cars and homes produce between 1/4 and 1/5 of the world's CO2 emissions.

          That can't be correct. Total human emissions of CO2 only account for about 3% of the world's CO2 emissions, so do you mean that American cars and homes account for between 1/4 and 1/5 of that 3%?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alen (225700)

      at some point 97% of geologists believed plate tectonics was false
      at some point 97% of scientists didn't believe that dino's became birds or believed that they were just the slow and lumbering lizards like in 60's movies

      almost every major scientific advance has been made by a few "rogue" scientists advocating rogue theories which at one time have been dismissed by most scientists in the field

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by serviscope_minor (664417) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:12AM (#43752647) Journal

        almost every major scientific advance has been made by a few "rogue" scientists advocating rogue theories which at one time have been dismissed by most scientists in the field

        On the other hand, some people are still banging on about the luminiferous aether.

        Just because the majority have been wrong in the past about some topics doesn't in any relate to the current one. I'd wager that in most cases where people disagree with the majority, the disagreers are wrong.

        Remember: you're going with some heavy selection bias picking the few counter examples. For every one of them, there have been a thousand lunatics who were completely and utterly wrong.

        • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sydneyfong (410107) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:51AM (#43753299) Homepage Journal

          A counter example is, well, a counter example.

          In case you don't know what it is, a counter example is a way to show that the original point was not as rigorous as it purports to be, by demonstrating a case that the claim does not hold.

          The original (implicit) claim is that when 97% of scientists agree on something, it must be right. The GP provides a counter example. In doing so, he does not claim that his example is representative of the vast majority of similar cases.

          I guess the problem with this story is that it's neither here nor there. Statements that 97% people believe in can be true (usually) or can be false (rarely). But given that we actually have evidence and data, why should we try to ascertain the truth by looking at what other people believe?

          It's like having a headline "97% people believe the world is round" -- yeah it's probably true, but if you really want to know the truth badly enough, you don't ask around for personal belief statistics, you try to go around the world to see whether you can get back to the original spot.

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kythe (4779) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:15AM (#43752685)
        This point (also made upthread) conflates belief uninformed by studies, with peer-reviewed studies, which is the topic of this post. I'd expect technical folks, programmers included, to understand the scientific method a little better than that.
        • Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by rainmouse (1784278) on Friday May 17, 2013 @11:33AM (#43753909)
          I'm simply staggered by the number of nay-sayers posting here and being modded up to +5 who are doing little more than desperately grasping at straws while denying the staggering array evidence in the world around them. Ignoring such overwhelming proof isn't even a matter of blind faith, its just willful ignorance sponsored by parties with a massive financial interest in staving off the inevitable as long as profitably possible.
      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by IWannaBeAnAC (653701) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:22AM (#43752797)

        That isn't very accurate. At some point 97% of geologists had never heard of plate techtonics. Once the theory was proposed there was, of course, some opposition because it was so different to what was previously believed. But once geologists properly evaluated the evidence, almost every geologist took it on board.

        Similarly, once the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs became widely known, it didn't take all that long for scientists to take a good objective look at the evidence and rewrite the textbooks.

        There is no comparison to climate change because the "for" and "against" theories have been known for 30+ years by now. So far no one has managed to find any convincing evidence against global warming, and at this point the basic theory is so well established it is inconceivable that anyone ever will. You might argue about the magnitude of the problem, and whether some other effect might mask the warming (which is true anyway, eg I don't think anyone really knows why the deep ocean has been warming faster than expected, and somewhat masking surface warming). But there isn't going to be a "smoking gun" that disproves the basic notions, not any more than there will ever be a "smoking gun" that disproves Newton's theory of gravity. That doesn't mean that the theories won't get refined (eg, general relativity can be seen as a refinement of Newtonian gravity).

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:26AM (#43752855)

        Are you wilfully ignoring the fact that it is the acceptance of man-made global warming which has *grown* to 97% acceptance? It's not currently being overturned by 3% - those 3% are the ones which haven't accepted it yet. Would you argue that the few remaining geocentrists are in the process of overturning the 99.99% agreement with current cosmological theory? Don't be so fucking stupid.

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)

        by jopsen (885607) <jopsen@gmail.com> on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:28AM (#43752887) Homepage

        almost every major scientific advance has been made by a few "rogue" scientists advocating rogue theories which at one time have been dismissed by most scientists in the field

        No, only a few scientific advances has be been by "rogue" scientists... The vast majority of scientific advancement in any field today happens by lots of people working hard publishing papers, attending conferences, talking to each other and trying a lot of different experiments.

        Most scientific advancement, and in particular the big advancements, are done one step at the time, but a large collective of scientists working hard.


        We notice the few cases in history when a few "rogue" scientists changes the world, because it is unusual and we like to celebrate the individual. It's the exception that makes the rule. Science happens by hard work, not by a sudden moment of clarity (or in this case campaign contributions).

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Daetrin (576516) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:28AM (#43752897)
        The problem with that argument is that the 97% that were wrong didn't do studies and publish papers to support their view, because clearly if they'd done the actual science relating to the issue they would have discovered they were wrong. They just pooh-poohed the claims of the 3%, disparaged them in correspondence, and argued that their studies were flawed without providing any kind of evidence to prove it.

        In other words, they acted just like all the anti-AGW people are acting right now.

        There were scientists who believed the continents were static, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" that was true. There were scientists who didn't believe in microorganisms, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" they don't exist. There were scientists who believed in the aether, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" it existed.

        In every case of this nature the anti-AGW try to cite, a large number of scientists assumed that something was true when it was not. Then some rebel got up and said "i think it works in some different manner!" and caught a lot of flak for it, which is unfortunate but part of the human condition. However despite the arguments and entrenched positions and pride and stubbornness, when actual science started being done the truth came out. In all the cases once papers started being published the vast majority of them supported the viewpoint that we have not generally come to conclude is the correct one. Microorganisms exist, the continents do move, and there is no aether.

        The anti-AGW people seem to be arguing that this is the sole case in history where as more and more science has been done, more and more scientists have apparently faked their results in order to support mistaken beliefs. In some cases they argue that it's because they're being funded by "pro-AGW" bodies, in particular governments, when the corporations who are firmly anti-AGW have far deeper pockets and have actually been caught funding scientists to promote certain views.

        In short, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. When new ideas come out it doesn't hurt to question them, but the anti-AGW people long since passed the point of reasonable doubts being aired and moved into denialism and conspiracy theories.
      • Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by IRWolfie- (1148617) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:42AM (#43753121)
        at some point 97% of climatologists didn't believe in global warming, and now they do. Did you see what I did there.
    • Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JackieBrown (987087) <dbroome@gmail.com> on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:51AM (#43752389)

      I think the real debate is what the consequences are from global warming. Most skeptics I know don't doubt that we impact out world. The questions we have is how large an impact that really is and whether the earth can adapt to it (without wiping us out.)

      It doesn't help that the extremest on the global warming side keep giving dire apocalyptic warnings with near timelines that keep turning out false (or not anywhere near as dire as the predictions where told to us.)

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by joh (27088) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:09AM (#43752607)

        I think the real debate is what the consequences are from global warming. Most skeptics I know don't doubt that we impact out world. The questions we have is how large an impact that really is and whether the earth can adapt to it (without wiping us out.)

        It doesn't help that the extremest on the global warming side keep giving dire apocalyptic warnings with near timelines that keep turning out false (or not anywhere near as dire as the predictions where told to us.)

        NOBODY is saying this is going to wipe us out. Really. It's just going to be really costly, wrecking havoc with economies and ecosystems and causing migrations, wars and collapsing economies here and there.

        All this jumping around by saying "It's not happening!", then "It's happening, but it's not caused by us!" and then "It's happening and it's caused by us but we won't be wiped out, so let's just pretend it isn't happening anyway!", but NEVER saying "OK, it's happening and it's going to be really troublesome but since it is caused by us we luckily can try to limit it by what we do!" is really strange.

        • Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Informative)

          by phantomfive (622387) on Friday May 17, 2013 @11:01AM (#43753443) Journal

          NOBODY is saying this is going to wipe us out.

          Never say nobody, because that is exactly what James Hansen says in his book, "Storms of My Grandchildren." Here's what he says, ""if we burn all the fossil fuel [it would lead to] a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently"

          The alarmists are out there, and they're in powerful positions.

    • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)

      by phlinn (819946) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:24AM (#43752835)
      Unfortunately, this paper wasn't particularly scientific. It's got the characteristics of a push poll, in that the most appropriate choice wasn't an available option [rankexploits.com] for the survey. It was based on reviewer's opinions of the articles, with no controls on who was doing the reviewing. Only 68 papers [rankexploits.com] out of 12,000 asserted greater than 50% of the cause to humans, while 78 explicitly rejected it.

      This number appears to be as flawed as the "98% of climate scientists" number a few years ago, where they didn't like their initial results and excluded a number of papers to bring the consensus amount up.
  • by zero.kalvin (1231372) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:20AM (#43751873)
    But saying that 97% of climate science papers agree on it does not validate it.
    • by GodInHell (258915) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:25AM (#43751987) Homepage
      The problem is that science . . . as a scholarly field as opposed to the practice of science . . . has no way to deal with the idea that a significant percentage of our leaders are in willful denial of the sound science. The reality of the research is defeated by their ideology.

      This is not new (ask Gallileo) but it is new for the U.S.

      I think we're just fucked.
    • by godrik (1287354) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:38AM (#43752173)

      What you say is definitively true. But that is not the point of the article, the point is to verify that the vast majority of experts believes (base don their study) that global warming is man made. Yet everybody you talk to tends to say to "experts are still debating". Well, with these numbers they are not still debating, they are pretty much convinced.

      Yet, they might be wrong. But policies have to be made based on experts opinion. And that opinion is not properly represented in the media.

      • by zzsmirkzz (974536) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:50AM (#43752369)

        the point is to verify that the vast majority of experts believes (base don their study) that global warming is man made.

        Is entirely man-made or man contributed to it? Those are two very different statements. If we only contribute that suggests that it's going to happen no matter what we do, the best we could hope for is to delay the inevitable. Given the history of the planet, I think this is the more likely scenario and we would be better off spending our energy figuring out how, as a species, to survive it when it inevitably happens.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by interkin3tic (1469267)
      Strawman argument: no one is saying the studies are valid because there's a consensus about it. They're valid based on the science IN those studies. What the consensus means is that we are idiots to not invest in trying to avoid it. Perhaps it would have been foolish to start heavily taxing coal and oil back in the 70's or 80's, as climate change may have proven to be a false hypothesis, but now it's foolish not to. Or at least extraordinarily selfish and short-sighted.
    • by Paul Slocum (598127) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:39AM (#43752195) Homepage Journal
      Actually according to them, only 32.6% "of climate science papers agree on it":

      We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. source [iop.org]
    • by bunratty (545641) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:40AM (#43752197)
      Right, you can never validate a hypothesis in science. You can only fail to falsify it. In other words, no one can seem to come up with another good explanation for the warming we've observed, so we've failed to falsify the idea that it's due to carbon dioxide emissions, a hypothesis first proposed in 1896 [wikipedia.org]. That doesn't mean it's the truth, but I sure know which way I'd bet!
    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:50AM (#43752379)
      Here's the way I see it. Scientists are like any other professionals. The ones that are doing top level research are the elites of their field. Some deniers will say that it is just everyone just covering each other when you get 97% consensus. At their level, you don't win grants and Nobel prizes by proving something everyone else has proven. You get them by discovering something no one else has found before. Scientists are arrogant and opinionated as much as your professional athlete, top notch lawyer, whatever. If you've ever attended meetings, discussions can delve into nasty fights reminiscent of British parliament debates. If 97% of them agree on something, then the science is probably sound.
    • by joh (27088) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:12AM (#43752653)

      On the other hand if 97% of climate science papers would agree on climate change NOT happening, this would be it. Case closed. Nobody would ever talk about it again.

    • by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:13AM (#43752657)

      But saying that 97% of climate science papers agree on it does not validate it.

      The article does not say that. What it says is that 97% that take a stance, take a pro-human-cause stance. But nowhere does it say what percentage take a stance.

  • Publication bias (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:22AM (#43751915)

    Without regard to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real: Which papers get published are largely a function of who's on the editorial board of each publication. If those boards are stacked with people holding a particular position, they tend to publish only papers which agree with that position.

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:45AM (#43752277)
      Without regard to whether or not gravity is real, almost all physicists are INCREDIBLY biased in favor of gravity.

      There are a lot of ideas or theories that, if you ignore reality, the relevant fields are incredibly biased towards or against. Bias doesn't mean incorrect, and the "reality" of a theory matters a lot. At least, to most researchers. Less so for paid shills for, say, the fossil fuel industry.
      • Ummmm (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday May 17, 2013 @11:34AM (#43753913)

        Gravity is not the best example. The reason is that we really DON'T understand gravity very well. We know that there is a force that we call gravity that causes objects to attract. However we don't have a solid idea how it actually works. We can't get it to unify with the other forces, there are indications that our best theory on it (general relativity) is incomplete and so on.

        The FACT of gravity, that objects attract or on a more human scale that shit falls down. We observe this all the time, there's not really a question that there is this force. However the THEORY of gravity, meaning the explanation for what it is and how it works, is something that is not solid.

        Now one can of course argue this to global warming as well. There is the fact that average global temperature has been rising, outside of known cycles. There is then the theory as to why, in particular that the primary or exclusive cause is increased atmospheric CO2 levels due to human emissions. One can accept the fact but argue the theory.

        Just saying, maybe pick a better example.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:22AM (#43751917)

    That's an extremely biased viewpoint.

    I know for a fact that 11,500 of those so-called "peer-reviewed papers" were paid for by Big Tree.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:23AM (#43751941)

    I am not commenting on Global warming.

    I am wondering if the bias in publications plays any role in these numbers. Any idea how hard it is to publish something that goes against standard scientific thought in any field?

    • by macbeth66 (204889) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:43AM (#43752241)

      Publications that go against the accepted dogma of the day, are generally rejected and can cause death to the career of the author. Contrary opinions have to be snuck in and couched in vague wordings. I suspect this is also true with global warming research.

  • by tompaulco (629533) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:24AM (#43751961) Homepage Journal
    I think they mean 97% of scientists agree that some amount of global warming is caused by mankind.The amount that is caused by humans may be some or even most, but I don't think anyone could argue that it is ALL caused by mankind.
    • No. That's what media outlets are spouting, but it's not even that - it's 97% of published papers, not scientists.

  • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:25AM (#43751981) Journal

    They might all agree but I read this climatescienceskeptic blog which gives a whole bunch of really obvious ideas about why its natural or not happening at all like the solar output or volcanos which I'm pretty sure that all the scientists are too dumb to have realised happen so I'm going to go with the blog.

  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:48AM (#43752329)

    Most Americans have a shaky understanding of cause and effect, courtesy of years of public education where feelings trump facts, opinions trump research, ineptitude trumps ability, and equal outcomes trump equal opportunity. As a result, other than saying "stop global warming", nobody really cares - they assume that "someone" will fix it, and that someone is probably "the government". You'll hear things like "global warming is bad, but I need a minivan to drive my 4 kids (which I _chose_ to have) to soccer" or "they should just tax rich people" or "blame China". Nobody wants to be the guy who actually sacrifies anything.

  • Meanless (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pubwvj (1045960) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:02AM (#43752525)

    Unfortunately, voting is not science. 99% of scientist used to say that "the Earth was flat", that "the Earth was the center of the Universe", that... All proved wrong.

    I'm not arguing one way or the other on global warming but rather that having agreement is not a good metric.

    By the way, I'm not a global warming skeptic. In fact, I'm pro-warming, it's better than the alternative of global cooling!

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:26AM (#43752867) Homepage

    Why is it MAN made? Why not WOMAN made?

    I see more women driving the largest SUV possible. MY wife spends far more time in the bathroom running tons of electrical devices.

    Help fight the Sexism in climate science!

Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...