Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

99.9% of Scientists Agree Climate Emergency Caused by Humans (theguardian.com) 281

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
knaapie writes: It may still be fuel for hot debate on social media, but 99.9% of scientist actually agree on the fact that humans are altering the climate. The Guardian reports that the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey by Cornell University of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies. This means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.

"It is really case closed. There is nobody of significance in the scientific community who doubts human-cased climate change," said the lead author, Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at Cornell University. In contrast, the paper cites a 2016 study by the Pew Research Center that found only 27% of US adults believed that "almost all" scientists agreed the climate emergency was caused by human activity. And according to the Center for American Progress, 30 US senators and 109 representatives "refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change." Several big media organisations and social networks also promote climate-sceptical views that have little or no basis in science. Lynas said the study should encourage them to review their policies. "This puts the likes of Facebook and Twitter in a quandary. It is pretty similar to vaccine misinformation; they both lack a basis in science and they both have a destructive impact on society. Social networks that allow climate misinformation to spread need to look at their algorithms and policies or to be forced to do so by regulators."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

99.9% of Scientists Agree Climate Emergency Caused by Humans More

99.9% of Scientists Agree Climate Emergency Caused by Humans

Comments Filter:

  • Headline expansion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2021 @12:33PM (#61906971) Journal

    The paper says "Scientists agree that humans are changing the environment." The headline says, "Scientists agree Climate Emergency Caused by Humans."

    One of these things is not like the other.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

      So do you believe the second headline to be false?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Look at the methodology employed. Apparently they decided this by doing a keyword search for 'skeptical' climate terms among the 88k papers.

      This research appears to be more about making headlines than anything.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )
        Dude, they didn't even search for "skeptical". They search for "sceptical" (which my browser says is a wrong spelling, even though the two terms are interchangeable). There are zero occurrences of "skeptical" in the paper. For reference, I did a Google search for the two terms. "Sceptical" has 66mil hits and "Skeptical" has 338mil hits. Fucking douche bags calling themselves scientists.

    • Re:Headline expansion (Score:5, Interesting)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2021 @12:46PM (#61907033)

      The paper says "Scientists agree that humans are changing the environment." The headline says, "Scientists agree Climate Emergency Caused by Humans."

      One of these things is not like the other.

      Well if you're going to criticize them for misstating the title to reflect their bias then you shouldn't also misstate the title to reflect your bias (ie, the meaningless "changing the environment" phrase). In fact, the phrase you quoted doesn't appear in the paper, much less its title. The actual paper is titled:

      Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

      I don't believe their review touched on the severity of the changes. In fact, whether something is an "emergency" or even "requires urgent action" is quite a different and much more ambiguous question than whether humans are causing the climate to change.

      But it seems quite clear that scientists overwhelmingly believe that humans are having a significant impact on the climate.

      • I don't believe their review touched on the severity of the changes.

        Yes, you agree with me. We might also add that "Climate Emergency" as a term is rather poorly defined.

    • This is the exact kind of nitpicking that avoids the issue. I don't know if you have kids but consider your kids and everyone else's kids will have to live under an authoritarian state which you cannot imagine because you want to bicker over "climate change vs "climate emergency" and this bickering will be ceaseless until enough people surrender their liberty to such an authoritarian rule. Now, I know you are already thinking of replying with some cliche founding father quote about liberty but do you honest

      • I don't know if you have kids but consider your kids and everyone else's kids will have to live under an authoritarian state which you cannot imagine because you want to bicker over "climate change vs "climate emergency" and this bickering will be ceaseless until enough people surrender their liberty to such an authoritarian rule.

        Uh, you are crazy. That is not a supported hypothesis.

        • It cannot be. Social sciences have no supported hypothesis. Predicting the outcome of people is more chaotic than imaginable. It's the difference between what we call prophecy and supported hypothesis, though perhaps they stem from the same essence.I am making an educating guess. Mark the words and wait and see. Funny enough by the time you wait, it won't matter. This is the bitter humor. As Regina says, we are laughing with God.

      • This is the exact kind of nitpicking that avoids the issue. I don't know if you have kids but consider your kids and everyone else's kids will have to live under an authoritarian state which you cannot imagine because

        Because bullshit. A bunch of right-wing ideologues are saying "admitting that climate is changing due to human actions inevitably and necessarily means that we must institute a totalitarian dictatorship, there's no other choice," but that's bullshit. This is a right-wing strawman.

        Yet another distraction that's trying to attack anybody from discussing actually solving the problem.

        • I am not right-wing. I am a "leftist"as much as a poor dichotomy can explain the dimensionality of a human being. The reality is if we only see in two sides there are only two sides and the bickering makes it clear the consensus side has failed.

          It's not a straw man, it's simple quantum mechanics applied to social phenomenon. measurements change reality and thus you measure reality in a dichotomy, which meabs the outcome can only be autocracy considering a lack of consensus. but hey, I don't blame you, these

    • More precision (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2021 @01:09PM (#61907119) Homepage Journal

      The paper says "Scientists agree that humans are changing the environment." The headline says, "Scientists agree Climate Emergency Caused by Humans."

      One of these things is not like the other.

      We can be more specific.

      Everyone agrees that humans are changing the environment, not everyone agrees that it is an emergency.

      Alarmists try to muddy the waters by saying that people who aren't on-board with their proposed solutions are "deniers", typically Republicans, but that's completely false. In recent senate hearings, not a single Republican questioned the claim.

      The point of disagreement is whether it's an emergency, whether we should enact short-sighted changes that won't work, or whether to enact long-haul changes that would have a real effect.

      The best analyses we have come from the UN, which shows that climate change won't be much of a problem in 2100; meaning: in productivity terms the loss of 3 years productivity at that time due to CC, in a context of productivity growing exponentially with a doubling period of about 30 years.

      In the meantime, consider that 20 years ago: BEVs weren't a thing, solar power farms weren't a thing, wind farms weren't a thing, and poverty was rampant across the globe.

      Today we have some 7% of energy from renewables, BEVs which are posed to decrease oil consumption overall by 47%(*), world poverty decrease from 30% (1997) to 9% (2017), faster than UN projections.

      What will the next 20 years bring?

      We just saw an article about shipping-container-sized nuclear reactors, the implication being that they would run for awhile and then be replaced whole with the used part taken away for proper recycling. I read about a company who's making drop-in nuclear reactors with the same form factor as peaker plant boilers. I read about small-scale pebble-bed reactors that can't be used for terrorism, will power a town for 20 years unattended, and can be easily refueled.

      We're developing a smart grid. Rooftop solar is poised to take off. More people are working at home. ISPs are finally building out fibre (due to StarLink), which will reduce friction. Carbon capture/sequestration is being tested. Grid-scale batteries are being tested. Offshore wind generation is ramping up.

      We've only realized that we're the stewards of the planet for about 50 years, and the last 20 years have seen tremendous progress on the issue, and the best estimates we have indicate that we'll have the problem solved before it becomes critical.

      Climate change is most definitely *not* an emergency ...unless you need website clicks.

      (*) Tesla alone is building about 1M vehicles a year, compared to 1.32 billion existing vehicles. The major manufacturers will be making equivalent BEV models by this time next year, such as the electric F150 (2022). With 20 years of production, that will put a serious dent in the number of ICE vehicles, and oil/gasoline needed.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        The point of disagreement is whether it's an emergency...

        Something that is steadily destroying the habitability of the planet such that it will not be possible to live here long before we've figured out how to get off this rock isn't an emergency?

      • We can be more specific. Everyone agrees that humans are changing the environment, not everyone agrees that it is an emergency. Alarmists try to muddy the waters by saying that people who aren't on-board with their proposed solutions are "deniers",

        And, as if to deliberately mock you, the very next post following this one informs us that in peer-reviewed studies, "the books are cooked" and that "scientists use circular logic".

        Yes, deniers exist.

        (and goes on to... fossils aren't old! Evolution is just a theory!)

        The point of disagreement is whether it's an emergency, whether we should enact short-sighted changes that won't work, or whether to enact long-haul changes that would have a real effect.

        The main fossil-fuel-funded think-tanks have moved on from the old "the science is a hoax!" propaganda to their next line of defense, "it's not as bad as they say," and the line of defense beyond that, "and anything we could possibly do to add

  • Like 99.9% of people voted for Saddam or Mao (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you look at some of these peer review studies ... it's not that unusual for the books to get cooked.

    Scientists use circular logic all the time to reinforce their views. Example: how old is this fossil? It's whatever the strata we found it in. How old is the strata? Well, it's the age of the fossils in it.

    They frequently push people out of their group for the crime of disagreeing with them.

    No wonder people are losing trust in science (and government) every day.
    • I agree with you that mainstream science is often hostile to challenges, but

      Example: how old is this fossil? It's whatever the strata we found it in. How old is the strata? Well, it's the age of the fossils in it.

      really isn't how that sort of thing has ever worked and isn't even a good example of hostility.

  • "It is really case closed. There is nobody of significance in the scientific community who doubts human-cased climate change,"

    Who determined who was "significant" and who was not? What was the criteria used in the determination? What were the "significant" people agreeing to? Was their agreement institutional, or individual?

  • education vs beatdown (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2021 @01:02PM (#61907095)

    I'm good with the posting up until "... forced to do so by regulators..."

    so it seems like we have a choice....

    1: let individuals decide for themselves and deal with the fallout from a few knuckleheads that will always be obstinate
    or
    2: empower some organization to determine and then force compliance with what is considered 'facts' and again, we will have to deal with the fallout from all that entails

    brushing aside the hysterics around my false dichotomy, I believe that the downsides of #2 are worse than #1

    there are no 100% solutions to this one, only tradeoffs; and since part of individual rights is the right to be wrong (hehe), it leads me to think that education, information and persuasion are the keys to change, not coercion, censorship and the oppression

    sure it may take longer, perhaps much longer than just having someone show up with a big stick to beat down critics, but, considering the tradeoffs, letting individuals decide for themselves is more representative of the world I'd like to live in

    no need to respond citing "...can't yell fire in a theater..." and/or "...but think of the harm they do spouting falsities..." and the like; while there a few certain instances in which an individual can't just do/say anything they want, the topic of climate change is nowhere near that level

    • The problem is that the government is not a neutral bystander. Fossil fuels have been, and continue to be, subsided from the well to the wheel.
      When there's a suggesting that renewables should get any help there's an outcry saying they need subsidies because they are too expensive.
      I'd be fine if the the government wasn't already picking sides, but that's not the reality.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by knaapie ( 214889 )

      On a positive note, you agree with the complete post, except for the last 6 words. I can live with that...

      Otherwise, I agree with what you say.

      The problem...
      What used to be a niche number of weirdos that no one ever listened to now have the complete internet as an audience.
      This combined with horrendously bad and 'just in it for the money' algorithms to propel their views on any social media echo chamber.

      The only answer we have been able to come up with...
      China style censorship with a democratic touch.

      What r

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jm007 ( 746228 )

        didn't say I agreed with it, nor that I disagreed with it; is it only a positive note if we agree? 'good with it' means that its approach to educate and persuade is more prefereable to the coercive approach

        the alternative I mentioned: "let people decide for themselves" and its downsides is a far better option than any other

        better does not mean perfect.... 'tradeoffs' is my angle

        "China style censorship with a democratic touch" may sound nice on certain topics, but it is truly a malignancy that would be

  • Selection bias (Score:3)

    by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2021 @01:11PM (#61907127)

    '“It is really case closed. There is nobody of significance in the scientific community who doubts human-caused climate change,” said the lead author, Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at Cornell University'.

    Could it be that only scientists who believe in AGW write papers about it? Perhaps it may even be true that only papers that talk up AGW get published.

    "The general public does not yet understand how certain experts are, nor is it reflected in political debate".

    It doesn't matter how certain experts are - only what is the case.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Nugoo ( 1794744 )

      Could it be that only scientists who believe in AGW write papers about it? Perhaps it may even be true that only papers that talk up AGW get published.

      Scientific journals are not talk shows; they are not there to provide viewpoints from "both sides". If only one side has evidence supporting it, then only one side is going to get papers published.

  • Are 99.9% of scientists climate experts? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    No, they are not. They are scientists in many diverse fields, most of which have nothing at all to do with climate science. So why do we care that the average neuroscientist agrees that climate change in man made? That's the first problem with these sweeping statements, which is really a way of coercing everyone else into believing. Well, if 99.9% of "scientists" believe, then it must be true. There is no debate, and if you dare to question it, you're stupid.

    The second problem is the study of climate scienc

    • Why do conservatives love playing the victim card? Waahhhh people mock my crazy opinions!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by marcle ( 1575627 )

      First of all, if you read TFA, it says 99.9% of climate studies, not scientists in general. And secondly, very few legitimate grants require the prediction of results in advance. The whole idea of a "study" is to examine the evidence in an unbiased fashion and report the results.
      Even if some of these studies were biased, there wouldn't be such an overwhelming consensus.
      Unless, of course, you're a science denier, and then you get to make up your own facts.

  • I keep seeing more articles on Slashdot on how bad global warming is getting but very little on what we should so about it, or how much as been done. There's plenty of great things happening to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and I believe it is important to discuss them. This is important if only for our mental health, far too many people are depressed over this. People need to know that things are being done, and we are far from out of ideas.

    The biggest problem I see are politicians that are bolting th

  • It'll be too late, when most wealthy people actually feel the impact.

    By wealthy, that's pretty much anyone in the western world who has a solid roof over their head and enough food to eat.

    The climate breakdown/change/crisis/warming - whichever one you want to choose - is still abstract to so many people.
    It remains abstract, until their house burns down or floods, due to extreme weather events.
    It remains abstract, until the supermarket shelves are empty.

    We have two choices really, over an undetermined amount

  • Also, there is no such a thing as a "climate emergency". And I am actually a real scientist, who actually works in this field. I'm not a "scientist" on television, I actually know what I'm talking about. But no one will believe that, because the television said something else.

    • In fact, I have found that as a general rule, you can assume that if people are trying there utmost to make it clear that everybody agrees on something, it is probably not true. If it really was so obvious, noone would be talking about how very, very obvious it is.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by swilver ( 617741 )

        Agreed, this is why I still don't believe the sky is blue. I can't see it from my nuclear fallout shelter, and all those photos from the internet look doctored to me. Even my former fucking friends claim the sky really IS blue, but they obviously have an agenda now.

  • What difference does causation make?

    If climate change was caused by space aliens and people could do something about it does this mean action is not worth taking because people didn't cause it?

    If climate change is caused by humans does this mean action is worth taking because humans caused it?

    Do either of these positions make any sense? The question is not causation it is what if anything can be done and what are the expected costs and benefits of a given action.

    There seems to be a lot of noise surroundi

  • Have a listen to Jordan Peterson Interview a long term environmental activist who calls out the climate alarmist movement as a political power trip not actually wanting sensible solutions.
    https://youtu.be/aLxZF_EWaLE [youtu.be]

  • The headline should read, "99.9% of articles published in journals that have editorial boards who believe in AGW theory also are favor of AGW theory."

    This is not a surprise.
  • I can tell the headline is false without evening knowing anything about how that conclusion was reached. For the simple reason that you will not get 99.9% consensus from any large group of humans on anything.

    You will not get 99.9% consensus on whether or not water is wet.

    If you really want your cause to spread, stop hallucinating consensus that isn't there and focus on actually making persuasive arguments.

  • Until recently, 99.99% of scientists though ulcers were caused by stress.

    99.99% of scientists thought sickness was caused by bad humors.

    99.99% of scientists thought that there were only four elements.

    99.99% of scientists believe that reality is objective.

    * not sure about that last one myself, but it seems to be.

    • You do realise that science, as we know it today, i.e. the scientific method, is a pretty recent invention, don't you? Look up Karl Popper.
  • Great care is needed in formulating a scientific question like this:

    Does human activity change climate: Well obviously -at SOME level.

    Does it case "warming". You need to define what that term means: average surface temperature? Energy balance? sea level? Water temperature? Averaged over the globe how?

    Without knowing the EXACT question its difficult to know how to interpret this.

    That said,while its outside of my field, I think there is sufficient evidence that human activity is modifying clim

  • Unpopular Opinion incoming:

    -I believe that climate change is real.
    -I believe that humans cause climate change.
    -I do NOT believe that science is conducted by polls.
    -I do NOT believe that polls of scientists, including scientists in unrelated fields constitutes valid science. They constitute polls.
    -I believe that those polls are gamed for political agendas.
    -I do NOT believe that any intelligent person - let alone scientist - would look at the world around them and deny that humans cause climate change.
    -I do

  • Climate refugees & food shortages... (Score:3)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2021 @04:45PM (#61907875)
    ..are more than likely going to affect parts of the USA sometime soon. Internally displaced populations have always made up the largest shares of refugees throughout history. I wonder what 'Muricans will be told to believe about that? They can re-live the Grapes of Wrath. The dust bowl only last a few years though, not for the foreseeable future or on a much bigger scale. Oh, & watch the price of beefburgers go through the roof.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close