so, there is some doubt about how much man contributes to climate change -- 97.1% of 32.6% agree the man is causing it -- the rest have no opinion or reject it ============ Abstract We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. 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 global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. 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.
Forest fires have always occurred, so what would be harm if we just torched the entirety of Georgia?
Do you have any idea how fucking stupid you sound?
Yes it was much hotter 600 million years ago. It wasn't a climate that human beings could have existed in. If you want to die, and sure lots of people would support that, why take the rest of human kind with you?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
