Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
7 out of 71 did support it. That's less than 10%. Over half thought the opposite was the case.
|
Incidentally, that opposite, which even back then 50% supported, is what 90%+ now support. So over the past few decades, a widely accepted theory has grown into a consensus.
No, 7% supported..the other almost half didn't have a clue. And of course "now" we can look back and see it was wrong, we aren't in a ice age or anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
It was hyped by the popular media. You can hardly blame science for what popular media publish.
|
Exactly like today, other than today more money is paid to people and forced to publish whatever the 'payments' tell them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
Eh... ozone depletion isn't bullshit. Go read up on it. We quit using CFCs for many things, and because of that, ozone depletion was halted. It will still take half a century for ozone concentrations to reach their pre-1975 levels, though.
|
You missed the point... and again, it was going away, before "man" changed anything. And now, it's been proven as a cycle, and that the estimates given in the 90's were incorrect, it was not as big or bad as they "estimated."
And even more so... when it takes 15-20 years to even see the effects "rise" to the upper atmospheres. Being so mathematically it should still be going on then... and it isn't.
Come on... pull your head out of the dark cavern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
Except that it isn't a split.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
In that poll, 75 out of 77 climate scientists said that they thought human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The only split worthy of the name exists in the public opinion. There is a consensus among specialists, but a fierce debate between people who don't know all that much about the subject. |
"aid that they
thought human activity" <-- lots of thinking..
"Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change."
Wow... all 5% and 8.5% published info on climate change (which nobody is arguing) but it doesn't say, 8.5% on man made climate change.
That's a "GREAT" bit of proof you just posted... So in reality, 3 were qualified to take the "poll."
And, more than enough links have been posted on this thread and others, that say it isn't man made.