I knew this would come up.
Then it looks like i am as loony as people who believe the earth is flat then.
The difference is the earth has been proved to be round (a slight elipse actually but near enough round) whereas the environmental case is not proved, it is anecdotal. In fact some of the evidence has been adjusted, some has been suppressed. There is no open discussion on the subjuct, people who question the case for environment being in danger are called all sorts of things like 'being as loony as people who think the earth is flat'.
There is a huge amount of open discussion of it.
An overwhelming amount of open discussion about it.
There are thousands and thousands of people who know more than you about it discussing it, and you know what?
THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU.
The evidence and consensus is so overwhelming that for you to not accept it does make you an utter loony. Or stupid beyond belief
I'll show you the extent of your madness, not that it will change your mind, because you really are either an utter loony who refuses to accept the reality or you are, actually, stupid beyond belief, but it might give a few people a laugh at your expense.
the environmental case is not proved, it is anecdotal
I wonder why, in that case, the IPCC have stated that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations?
And that the probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%?
I wonder why over 30 national science academies have issued joint declarations confirming man-made global warming, and urging countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases?
I wonder why hundreds of countries have signed the Kyoto protocol?
I wonder why survey after survey of published papers and of direct polling of scientists shows that an overwhelming majority agree that man-made climate change is real?
We are talking here of the work involving
thousands of scientists, all peer-reviewed. We are talking here of organisations like the Royal Society saying ""There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation." Of the American Association for the Advancement of Science saying "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
I wonder why surveys have formed conclusions such as
"the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
and
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
?
I wonder why not one scientific body of national or international standing now rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming?
Do you really think that all this is some fantastically, (and historically utterly unprecedentedly well) organised conspiracy by hundreds of countries and thousands of scientists to scare us all into using less oil before it runs out?
Does every individual scientist agree? No.
Is 100% of the evidence unequivocal and consistent? No.
Is every single scientific paper correct? No.
But "the environmental case is not proved, it is anecdotal ... There is no open discussion on the subject"? Please don't insult our intelligence.
people who question the case for environment being in danger are called all sorts of things like 'being as loony as people who think the earth is flat'
Those writing official papers have to be a bit more mealy-mouthed.
"Expert credibility in climate change", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 2010: "
the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
"Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 2009: "
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
I prefer a more concise observation - anybody who thinks that all those thousands of scientists, all those hundreds of scientific bodies are wrong, anybody who thinks that the fact that
not one scientific body of national or international standing now rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming can just be dismissed, and that they, as a non-expert in the field, are right to reject all of that is either a total loony or unbelievably stupid.