Scientists 95% sure humans are the reason for.....

jcblass - Global Warming advocates cleverly covered their ass years ago by quickly pivoting to "global climate change"

I had a college professor who was big time into this stuff and I asked him why the warming stopped and he explained that it wasn't called "global warming" but "global climate change"

It seems to me that people are relabeling the problem to match the data. Rather than let the data dictate the label.


Excellent point.

excuse me for maybe being wrong, but that pictured evidence is steam coming from a cooling tower of a nuclear plant, not fossil fuel exhaust.  Even if it was a coal plant, that is just steam.

Humans fight about everything.. land, money, power, ideology. Yet, every single major scientific organization in the world.. across numerous political, religious, ideological and territorial boundaries.. from the US to China to Iran and so on.. have all arrived at an overwhelming consensus - far greater than a simple majority - that the theory of human induced climate change is a valid.

This fact is masked by the presence of politically motivated groups who reject scientific consensus while exerting a significant influence upon media. The entire movement is almost entirely founded upon a mixture of confirmation bias and propaganda.. all to give the impression that human induced climate change theory is merely a matter of political opinion.. like abortion rights or gun control. There are people all across America who vote in polls about whether or not they accept the theory... as if their opinion meant more than the weight of my morning shit. It's amazing when you stop and think about it.

YasielPuigedMyPiehole -
OG Wan Kenobi - 


cut their government funding and 95% of scientists won't give a shit about climate change


ding fucking ding. Eart has been around millions of years but we think we know what the fuck is happening because we have a little over 100 years of data. Give me a fucking break. Too small a sample size
You know they have proxies such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and more which can give evidence dating back hundreds to thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. These proxies can record things such as temperature, co2 concentration, particles that were in the air (to determine if a volcanic eruption occurred) the one thing that is sure is that as co2 concentration increases, so does temperature. I do agree this was a poorly written article. I would have liked to see charts of change in temperature in deep ocean which they claim has taken more. I would have also liked to see a list of volcanic eruptions in the past 15 years because they typically only affect climate for 3-7 years as oppose to a decase Phone Post 3.0

What does it mean to be "95%" sure of something?

If you are not sure, then you are unsure.

Can someone be "95%" alive? Phone Post 3.0

MMAdotCOM - 
kung_pow - Saying "scientists are 95% sure" is not the same as saying "95% of scientists are sure"

How exactly do you determine your level of sureness?

statistics, how do they work?

lol this

DragonDidn'tDrinkEnoughPee -
CavemanDave -

the words "scientists" "the UN", and "the Daily Mail"  should never be used together without somebody fucking a chicken while wearing a clown costume.

Dead chicken or live chicken? Phone Post

Live....or rubber. Either works Phone Post

ndenis - What does it mean to be "95%" sure of something?

If you are not sure, then you are unsure.

Can someone be "95%" alive? Phone Post 3.0

Good scientists are never 100% sure of something IMO

I wonder, is global warming over?

warpath79 - I am sure it's humans that brought earth into and out of an ice age. not natural occurrences. SUVs

Yep, humans killed the dinosaurs because we didn't have SMOG restrictions or carbon credits beck then.

When will we learn?

ndenis - What does it mean to be "95%" sure of something?

If you are not sure, then you are unsure.

Can someone be "95%" alive? Phone Post 3.0


It's statistical confidence over a range of samples, it's something you could apply to a population rather than an individual because 'confidence' depends on the natural variation there is in a range of samples.

I.e. part of my job is materials testing. I might be given 100 samples, 50 made using the current method, 50 made by some cheaper process or substitution and then be asked if there's a significant change in strength.

The answer isn't yes or no strictly. The answer is usually along the lines of 'yes/no with 65% confidence, if you want 90% confidence I'd have to test about another 200 samples'.

The level of confidence is statistical, depends on number of samples, variation between them, strength of the effect, etc. It's not like I take a straw poll around the Instron machine.