Citat:
Sorry. Det är faktiskt inte inte alls vad pappret du länkade säger. Ordet 'fuel' förekommer en (1) gång i artikeln. Du har inte läst den va?Det det finns en konsensus om är att mänsklig aktivitet (sannolikt kraftig) bidrar till klimatförändringar.
Det finns en visst mått av ironi i att individer kallar andra individer för 'vetenskapsförnekare' när de påtalar att 'förbränning av fossila bränslen' inte är samma sak som 'mänsklig aktivitet'.
Fan vad du är korkad.
För att exemplifiera: det är ju inte förbränningen av fossila bränslen som är problemet med avskogning. Utan att träden försvinner. Är det verkligen så svårt att fatta?
Citat:
Ironin...
När folk som är experter på ämnet är så här överens så är det viktig vägledning för oss som inte är lika insatta. Vi lekmän har sällan den utbildning, kunskap och erfarenhet som krävs för att bilda oss egna uppfattningar. Det bästa vi kan göra är att lita på dem som vet.
Annars riskerar vi att bli lurade av bedragare, som har intresse av att dölja sanningen.
Annars riskerar vi att bli lurade av bedragare, som har intresse av att dölja sanningen.
Men visst. Jag kan hålla med dig om att lekmän som DU uppenbart inte är kapabel om att bilda dig en korrekt uppfattning.
Citat:
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
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.
…
"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
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.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
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.
…
"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
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.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
För att ta det i klartext:
Citat:
According to the IPCC AR6 summary and many other previous studies, mitigating future warming requires urgent efforts to eliminate fossil fuels combustion and other major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Our study helps confirm that there is no remaining scientific uncertainty about the urgency and gravity of this task.
Jag hoppas du förstår distinktionen mot ditt påstående.
__________________
Senast redigerad av hogerspoket 2021-11-20 kl. 10:18.
Senast redigerad av hogerspoket 2021-11-20 kl. 10:18.
