Wouldn't this be better in the Politics forum in one of the climate threads.

Wouldn't this be better in the Politics forum in one of the climate threads.

+1

---

Wouldn't this be better in the Politics forum in one of the climate threads.

+2

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

There is an editorial in "Nature" magazine, titled "Gone fishing", which discusses this case. I cannot link it, I should have to pay, but go and read it if you can, I do not have a subscription to "Nature" magazine, I am only a registered user, but I can read its editorials and some review articles every week.
Tullio

---

I agree with you. A subject discussed in "Nature", which is not a political magazine but the best science magazine in the world, can be discussed here. The subject goes beyond the case, and implies the social responsibility of scientists also in cases like nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. We have nuclear warheads stored in Italy and nobody cares about them, while people protest against the boring of a railway tunnel in Val di Susa . This is absurd.
Tullio

---

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

And that widely repeated 97% of scientists number ....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/03/07/pseudo-science-and-the-age-of-irrationalism/

84% percent of scientists think that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels but only 49% of the public believes it.

If they misrepresent about a small detail like that, what else are they misrepresenting?

---

84% percent of scientists think that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels but only 49% of the public believes it.

Of course burning releases heat. But the issue here was the CO-2 effect of Human activity.

There has been plenty of back and forth on whether human activity which is a small percent of an even smaller percent of the atmospheric gasses matters to any degree at all.

The fear I have is the ignorant , misguided and costly efforts to try to change something that we can't and the way we try to change it doesn't matter anyway to begin with.

Less people would have less impact on the PLanet. There won't be less people.

There is an editorial in "Nature" magazine, titled "Gone fishing", which discusses this case. I cannot link it, I should have to pay, but go and read it if you can, I do not have a subscription to "Nature" magazine, I am only a registered user, but I can read its editorials and some review articles every week.
Tullio

Here's said article in picture form for anyone interested.

Image

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.