• justicewillprevail

    Fail to see the point of this opinion piece. There is evidence that human activities are leading to global warming, directly. To quibble about the percentage is distracting from the real story: that action is required NOW.

    To compare climate deniers to the discovery that Earth is round is ignore science, because that was evidence based. This article, like deniers, are the flat earthers pointing out lack of consensus instead of the availability of data (approx 1/3, according to this author).

    When sea levels are up to their ears, perhaps then there’ll be consensus enough for them?

  • HarryWiggs

    You realize, your premise has been utterly debunked, ever since 2013?

  • JohnH

    John Cook, the author of the paper you attack has submitted a rebuttal to Houstonian editors which makes a hash of your argument (none of which is original). Hopefully, they will publish it.

    Even if your argument against Cook’s paper held water (and Cook’s reply shows that it doesn’t), several studies have found that the vast majority (96-98%) of scientists who actually work and publish in fields relevant to the science (climatology, geology, meteorology, and so on) and nearly all of the published papers support the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This consensus was first remarked in science historian Naomi Oreskes’ 2004 survey of the literature and has since been validated in several subsequent surveys (Doran (2009), Anderegg (2010), Cook’s 2013 paper, and Carlton (2015)) of varying methodologies.

    Of national academies of science the world over, not a single one has made a declaration denying anthropogenic climate change, and the vast majority have formally declared that human-induced climate change is real and have urged nations to reduce greenhouse gasses.

    Of independent unions, professional associations, societies, institutes, federations, and other organizations of international standing of scientists and engineers, all have released statements accepting anthropogenic climate change. All. The last holdout was, perhaps understandably, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which capitulated in 2007. Considering that most of these organizations are entirely independent this alone is a remarkable consensus.

    Perhaps most surprising of all, even organizations that have the greatest financial motives to deny the science, such as oil companies, once entrenched in official denial, have completely abandoned denial. Not a single major oil company denies the role of fossil fuels in global warming. Even OPEC accepts the science.

    That’s a lot of agreement over something that is portrayed in much of the media and among denialists as a matter of live scientific controversy.

    So where, if anywhere, is the debate happening? In newspaper editorials and in comment threads, the eternal last refuges of ideological denialism.

  • James McKay

    I am genuinely surprised that someone in February 2017, would try to argue against the FACT that there is a consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Cook’s study is one of many showing the same thing. Plus you’ve overlooked some other things – like for example statements from every university and scientific institution in the world.

  • BL Brown

    What idle nonsense. Every major national scientific society around the world has accepted the facts: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, human emissions are responsible for the large increase in CO2 that’s taken place over the last hundred years and more (and which continues today), and the impact on climate is melting ice, changing weather patterns and threatening coastal cities, agriculture and more. The 97% figure has been confirmed by many different measures: the vast majority of qualified scientists agree.

Copyrıght 2015 The Houstonian. All RIGHTS RESERVED.