97% of Scientists Believe in the Scientific Method.

▲
1
0
▼

97% of Scientists Believe in the Scientific Method.

2019 Aug 7, 8:01am 1,942 views 25 comments

Controversia sul riscaldamento globale - Wikipedia

The global warming controversy is a dispute over the causes , nature and consequences of current global warming . These disputes are actually much more vigorous in the media than in the scientific community . [1] Most of these theses, expressed in related scientific publications , have in fact been refuted by the well-known mechanism of peer review , which has always accompanied progress and consensus building in the scientific sphere until proven otherwise [ 2].

In particular, the dispute concerns the causes of the increase in the average air temperature on a global level, especially starting from the mid- twentieth century , if this increase is unprecedented or is part of normal natural climatic variations such as the Climatic Optimum medieval and the Little Ice Age , if humanity has contributed to this increase and if this increase is partially or completely attributable to incorrect measurements. Further areas of discussion concern the estimation of climate sensitivity , predictions about future warming of the planet and the consequences of such warming.

The framework of this debate makes a clear perception of the facts to the general public difficult. In particular the anthropic influence seems to be perceived in a distorted way; for example, a survey was conducted on a heterogeneous and vast audience, showing that with increasing technical competence positive responses to the question are more frequent if "... human activity is a significant factor in changing global temperatures on the planet »

Comments 1 - 7 of 25 Next » Last » Search these comments

Onvacation @ 2019 Aug 7, 8:12am

There are skeptical researchers on the anthropic role in the current warming: they represent a minority in the scientific community, although in recent years their number has experienced a significant increase [10] . Among these "skeptics" are, among others, the Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis , as well as former members of various IPCC committees such as meteorologists Hajo Smit, Philip Lloyd and Roy Spencer , as well as atmospheric physicists like Fred Singer and climatologists John Christy and William D. Braswell. In particular, a theory antagonistic to global warming is the Gaia hypothesis by James Lovelock .

The criticalities expressed by these researchers are different, they arise from the decrease in the global average temperature that occurred approximately between 1940 and 1976 [11] (which mainstream climatologists tend to explain with the effects of global obscuration ) despite continuing to increase the concentration of CO 2 with the same constancyin the atmosphere in the same time interval, they note the lowering / stasis of the global temperature observed in the last decade with respect to the 1998 peak and the presumed politicization and extremization of the conclusive documents of the IPCC and express perplexity on the possibility of establishing a relationship of cause-effect between CO 2 increase and global warming. Some of them also underline the role of other natural climate factors among which the main one would be the variation of solar activity , but also the effect of cosmic rays , which would have a role on the formation of clouds in the lower troposphere and therefore on climate change while other scientific studies on suchcorrelation instead gave negative results (the CLOUD experiment underway at CERN in Geneva will try to unravel with certainty the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation). The validity of the current climate models used, which would not be able to effectively reconstruct the past climate nor be able to predict the stagnation of the last decade's overheating [12] , is also questioned, as well as for the estimation of climate sensitivity .

fdhfoiehfeoi @ 2019 Aug 7, 9:07am

99% of scientists believe in getting paid to push an agenda.

Onvacation @ 2019 Aug 7, 10:26am

NuttBoxer says

99% of scientists believe in getting paid to push an agenda.

I disagree. It's a very small percentage of corrupt and politically connected scie tists who are pushing the catastrophic AGW agenda. Michael Mann comes to mind.

fdhfoiehfeoi @ 2019 Aug 7, 10:28am

Onvacation says