Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Consensus on Global Warming

Posted by michael on from the heads-buried-in-the-sand dept.

FredFnord writes "Well, here's an interesting one: the fine folks at Science Magazine have done an analysis of the last ten years' published scientific articles (articles from crank or non-peer-reviewed publications were not counted) on the subject of global climate change. The results themselves are interesting, but the most remarkable part was that, of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise." JamesBell submits this article by a geologist which suggests that the Earth is in serious, imminent, unavoidable danger.

3 of 1,200 comments (clear)

  1. Lovely by AceCaseOR · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You gotta love groupthink.

    --
    Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
  2. Re:Like it matters ... by JesseL · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So explain how government taxation is different from the mafia forcing you to pay "protection" money, or demanding a cut of your business.

    Hint: It's not

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  3. Re:In other news... by stonecypher · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Amusingly, both the Los Angeles Valley and Mexico City had smog before the invention of the combustion engine. Just because you can see it doesn't mean that you're correctly estimating its origin or its impacts, even if (and in fact often when) it seems totally obvious. To wit, New York City puts out more emissions than Los Angeles, and yet it's barely even hazy.

    The bulk of the gasses we currently believe are contributing to global warming are totally invisible. The next time you point to smog and start to tell yourself you can see the roots of global warming, remind yourself that in fact you cannot.

    I'm not arguing your point; I agree that reducing emissions is critical. That said, your example is worthless, and your tone towards the parent utterly unwarranted. This is the sort of thing which, if said on the city street, often leads to a missing tooth. It may surprise you to learn that, rather than being seen as insightful and witty, you're actually seen quite differently.

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS