Ah, found it. That was a link to an earlier survey, so I didn't click on that one. Yes, I can see how that would raise doubt, but the nature of the sample doesnt mean that all 2100 of the articles are suggesting there's no evidence, otherwise theyd be rejecting it. It's just that the outroght causes are not the discussed in the article. Take the ones where the causes are discussed it's 888-4 in favour of endorsement of human activity being the driver.
it was the later survey where I got the figures from you seem to be ignoring the overwhelming majority of articles that didnt show any endorsement
It's ok everyone the sun is out today and I don't need to put the heating on. Nature answered the question for me.
In quite a few of the ones that infer human involvement, they don't state to what extent, plus several of the authors are not experts in a field that enables them to claim that robustly.
Well, there is, isn't there... Cities have their own microclimates due to urbanisation, areas with high factory concentration and multiple chimneys, airports such as Heathrow... All these show how climate can be changed by man. The question is whether man's input has affected the global climate to the extent that we are told and whether paying more tax will help it. To me, the race for energy independence is more important politically, than having an actual reversing effect.
Paying more tax to "fix" or "stop" climate change will never help or achieve anything bar making every day life more expensive for everyone below the very few at the top and their mates
How am I ignoring it? I literally addressed it in my last post. If they endorse it, then that's a yes. If they minimise it, or say there is no definitive proof, that's a no. Anything else is no position, and the research literally states that "No position" means that "the paper does not address or mention the cause of global warming". Over 80% of those papers focus on the Impacts or Methods of data analysis used rather than the causes. A further 11% are not even climate change papers, but were selected in the sample due to containing one of the phrases "climate change", "global climate change" or "global warming"
I don't think that's really the relevant question because that's not really part of the measures required to address the environmental issues we face. Anti-environmentalists like those on this thread seem to be drawn to the idea of it all being about charging everyone more tax, presumably because that's a bad thing that they can rail against. Really the measures we need are more about priorities. We can stop prioritising the interests of giant fossil fuel lobbies above everyone else, we can cultivate better societies that aren't built around using cars for every five minute journey, we can stop producing so much pointless waste all over the place. Most of these things don't require any action by or cost to the common man. It's more about the systems we have no say in and which don't effect our finances but those of enormously wealthy people.
you just have ignored something that is there a lot of people didnt mention man made climate change although they were discussing climate change
Each paper will be discussing a specific element related to climate change, but over two thirds of the sample weren't discussing the CAUSES of climate change, which is the key data in this debate. Anything that doesn’t give an opinion on that should be excluded, which leaves 888-4 in favour. Clearly there's no point discussing this any more though, as you're hiding behind irrelevant data and pretending it somehow backs up your point, so I'll leave you to it.
We could’ve had a lot more nuclear power plants but tree-huggers cried about it in the 80s and 90s and the UK and Germany capitulated to them and just continued using fossil fuels. France didn’t and continued investing in nuclear.
Yep, that's an example of a big picture approach that could be (or could have been) done differently to improve things.
Nuclear power isn't the final solution - France has had problems with it's power plants for years - shutdowns, maintenance issues and problems getting educated technicians - the government has been subsidising costs, but they have been importing electricity from the UK, Norway, Denmark and Germany for the last four years as can't produce enough capacity. The problem with nuclear power plants is that the costs increase over time, due to the issues mentioned, and that they can never be shutdown whilst in existence, which results in huge maintenance costs. China has the best energy approach at the moment, for independence and renewability - knock up the renewables, solar, wind etc. and also build fossil fuel power plants that can be mothballed until needed, as a back up. It's madness that the UK is not fully energy independent, but you people keep voting the same two parties in .
A bit facile blaming 'tree huggers'. Have you forgotten Chernobyl, Windscale, 3-mile island, Fukushima? People rightly question nuclear power then and now. Yes, France has been a success except that now they're struggling to keep their reactors going safely. Half of them are shut down. Personally I think nuclear is inevitable and the longer it gets debated the safer it will become imo.
I don't know about nuclear in the UK - aren't a Chinese company building one plant now? The problem with nuclear is that just one plant won't be successful long term because of the lack of educated staff... You need a lot of them and the whole education infrastructure around it, a decades long plan, where most ppl who complete expensive doctorates and masters etc are guaranteed a job.. Compared to wind power, basically a gear box on a pole, you can do a ropes course in a few weeks and a basic mechanics course and be up there topping up oil levels within six months.. The modern Chinese fossil fuel power stations are so efficient now, with a relative minimal pollution per joule produced, that it seems stupid not to build these, for 5-10% of the cost of a nuclear power station, whilst getting wind, wave and solar renewables up at the same time - a properly integrated system.
Chernobyl happened because the Soviets cut corners then intentionally concealed design flaws with their reactors from the engineers and technicians who worked on them. Windscale another cover-up job by a government. The scaremongering about nuclear energy has, ironically, set environmentalism back decades. It’s too late now anyway. Just have to hope humanity can bounce back like they did after the LALIA.
Massive contrick. It’s just Mother Nature telling us we’re all ****s. A bloke in Gardeners told me and he should know.
