Questions like these always fascinate me. We as a global society depend on science to advance humanity in just about every way possible. We live longer, feed more people, travel faster, and postulate more and more about the future. Through empiricism, science comes to a consensus on a number of things. Empirical data is collected and interpreted. The more scientist come up with the same results the more it is believed by the scientific community.
The results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
Gee big shocker there. But if you really want to look at an institution dedicated to misinformation about Global Warming, just look at the Cato Institute. By the way, the think tank was founded on money from the Koch family and one of the Koch kids sits on the board right now.
Even George Bush believes that Global Warming is real
Q Mr. President, for the record, is global warming real?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is real, sure is. But the solutions -- having said that, the solutions have got to be measured and realistic -- you can't have a solution to global warming unless China and India are part of any international pact. It's one of the reasons I didn't accept what's called the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore was labeled as anti-environment
But lets just say that humans do not contribute to Global Warming in any significant way at all. Would it still be such a terrible idea to agree with the Kyoto protocol and reduce pollution as much as possible?