People talk about us destroying the Earth. What nonsense! The Earth won't be going away anytime soon. We might, but we are of the Earth and not the Earth itself.

Here's a fact. The Roman period was warmer than it is now. That was about 2000 years ago or long before there were as many people or coal fired power plants.

Scientists (ok geologists at CU actually) identified a volcanic eruption around 1250 that ushered in the mini ice age. That led to crop failures world wide, disease, plague, starvation, death and all manner of bad things. They believe that there were maybe 4 total eruptions over the course of a few decades that did this. Big eruptions for sure but 4 of them.

Historians point to the Roman period as one of off the charts prosperity for mankind ushering in crazy stuff like democracy, architecture, science, mathematics, etc.

Which would you prefer?

You obviously want a black and white proof......sadly by the time YOU get that ...it will be too late for you to do anything about it.

The planet is not over populated. There are millions of square miles of continents that have very very small populations. In the UK we populate less than a 1/4 of our landmass. Millions in London and other cities, but huge areas of land almost empty. The US is the same, China and Russia is the same. The last two decades has seen the population drop (World Health Organisation - look it up) Will this downward swing last - who knows. If conflicts occur in many countries probably. If we get a worldwide ceasefire probably not. Population has very little to do with c*****e c****e. What people do ...Has.

G****l w*****g is full of contradictions. You can pick and choose good or bad data to suit your needs. A prolonged heatwave will create water shortages because government have not provided sufficient resources. For you and me - a heatwave is an excuse to have fun. Then next year there is no heatwave so governments do nothing. At some point there will be water shortages every year. Government will blame something else. People will be using too much - lets limit the amount they can afford.

Air pollution is a problem for city dwellers, Lets ban oil products rather than make public t***sport more effective. Flooding effects a very small number of people, it inconveniences many people, the cost of which is measured in losses of GDP. People moan, governments build new roads... so more air pollution.

In most cases measurable g****l w*****g has little or no affect in the short Political term. In some cases, it is creating a high risk of serious problems in the long term. Governments are going to feel the financial problems long before people do. Will they make useful decisions that help their population - hell no. It is probably too contentious and the 'solutions' will no doubt 'impinge on peoples civil rights'.

Why should you or I feel threatened by it. Because Governments will continue to do nothing but blame others. Usually Joe Public. There is no quick fix. But people will survive.

If I sound confused - it is because environmental impacts are confusing. Only when you look around at where you live do you see 'The problems' and wonder why 'Our Generation' has done nothing. We have known about the problems for most if not all of our lives. We still do nothing but argue about the consequences that affect 'our national interest'.

George (BA hons Environmental Science and Geography)

Absolutely false. You apparently have no idea how the 97% figure was derived. It has nothing to do with your so called survey "where 77 of 79 answered in the affirmative." You've been misled.

The figure is based on a 2013 peer-reviewed study that evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists agree, and over 97 percent of nearly 12,000 scientific articles that found that g****l w*****g is real and largely caused by humans. This level of consensus is equivalent to the level of agreement among scientists that smoking causes cancer.

Some more recent studies on consensus in climate research have concluded that the actual consensus is even higher than 97 percent. In 2015, James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, examined titles and abstracts of more than 24,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on c*****e c****e published during the past couple of years. He has identified 69,406 authors named in the articles. Only four of them (one in every 17,352 scientists) rejected the fact that human emissions cause c*****e c****e. He refers back to 11 years ago, when Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor of the history of science and coauthor of the book Merchants of Doubt, reviewed 928 abstracts of articles on anthropogenic c*****e c****e. She didn’t run across one that rejected it.

Says Powell:

"The 97% is wrong, period. Look at it this way: If someone says that 97% of publishing climate scientists accept anthropogenic g****l w*****g, your natural inference is that 3% reject it. But I found only 0.006% who reject it. That is a difference of 500 times." http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

Powell continues to update his figure on his web site. His latest update shows that, of 54,164 peer reviewed journal articles on man-made g****l w*****g from 1991-2015, only 31 reject the consensus view, making the consensus 99.94 percent.

You must be the only winger in the islands. In the pantheon of Hawaiian cultural greats, surfers and musical innovators ... no wingers. Land robbers, developers, and missionaries? Plenty of wingers.

Hi'ilawe~Gabby Pahinui - Gabby's signature tune

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTjHGf2gGo

Hi`ilawe featuring Cyril Pahinui - Cyril's arrangement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c33Z5DKuYCA

Jerry Lopez defined 'cool' at Pipeline all those years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDbEXCCyBfg

No one has ever said 'Bruddah Trump' or even PragerU.

In the old days they had this stuff called 'Primo Necto Maui Wowie', is it still around? Try some.

Absolutely false. You apparently have no idea how the 97% figure was derived. It has nothing to do with your so called survey "where 77 of 79 answered in the affirmative." You've been misled.

The figure is based on a 2013 peer-reviewed study that evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists agree, and over 97 percent of nearly 12,000 scientific articles that found that g****l w*****g is real and largely caused by humans. This level of consensus is equivalent to the level of agreement among scientists that smoking causes cancer.

Some more recent studies on consensus in climate research have concluded that the actual consensus is even higher than 97 percent. In 2015, James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, examined titles and abstracts of more than 24,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on c*****e c****e published during the past couple of years. He has identified 69,406 authors named in the articles. Only four of them (one in every 17,352 scientists) rejected the fact that human emissions cause c*****e c****e. He refers back to 11 years ago, when Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor of the history of science and coauthor of the book Merchants of Doubt, reviewed 928 abstracts of articles on anthropogenic c*****e c****e. She didn’t run across one that rejected it.

Says Powell:

"The 97% is wrong, period. Look at it this way: If someone says that 97% of publishing climate scientists accept anthropogenic g****l w*****g, your natural inference is that 3% reject it. But I found only 0.006% who reject it. That is a difference of 500 times." http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

Powell continues to update his figure on his web site. His latest update shows that, of 54,164 peer reviewed journal articles on man-made g****l w*****g from 1991-2015, only 31 reject the consensus view, making the consensus 99.94 percent.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Abstract


We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic g****l w*****g (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global c*****e c****e' or 'g****l w*****g'.
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,
32.6% endorsed AGW,
0.7% rejected AGW and
0.3% were uncertain about the cause of g****l w*****g.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% (NOTE: This does not consider the 66.4% MAJORITY that did not put forth a position) endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing g****l w*****g. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.


So basically, only the scientists that expressed an "OPINION" were counted. Funny, I always thought science was about facts. Must be nice to stack the deck in your favor. I'd call that "junk science" or playing loose with statistics.

Any claims that 97% of all scientists agree are outright lies. People that promote these kinds of things are either liars or terribly misinformed and easily duped.

The link above can be reached by NASA's website but I'm guessing you knew that.