a snip..
Be a little more clear, Pete. 97% agree on "natural" climate change. A majority do not agree on "man-made" climate change.
tecumseh..
huh.. the worlds glaciers are melting, the ice caps are melting.... so who am I to believe Fox New or my lying eyes?
I would suggest if you first sieve out all the doctors of divinity and then the doctors with various virtual university degrees and then highly discount any 'professor' that describes themselves as 'adjunct' and try, try, try to totally stick to those folks 'professional opinion' that really understand the DATA and the MECHANISMs working in terms of climate that the real number is more like 99% agree that man and the growth in population is dramatically affecting the earth climate although I can 'kind of' understand the data, understanding the complex and often chaotic mechanisms for the worlds climate is way above my pay scale. climate change is real and basically correcting things after everything fall apart is really not an option here. I have had this conversation before with the former head of the NOA (held that cabinet position under Reagan) and although his pay grade was much greater than mine (he was an admiral) and my pay great was a bit less than that (3rd class petty officer) we agreed that man induce climate change is real and the climate deniers will in time change their OPINIONS (opinions which I would suggest are derived from no data and no understanding of mechanism... which is to say largely wishful thinking or the hope that god will intervene right before we shoot ourselves in the head). my wife (very much a phd type) did a paper some 20 years ago looking at the data and the trends and made some suggestions as to where for us here in the US the largest risk would show itself < basically since everything here is run by BIG oil and gas this didn't win here very many friends or well healed allies.
there are some things that will resolves themselves... with the price of oil falling at some $ price canadian tar sands oil will no longer be economically viable. I suspect even now it cannot compete with natural gas either in terms of price or possible supply. and finally here is a tid bit to stick in your hat.... you can tally up all the KNOWN SOURCES of hydacarbons on the planet (I would assume this includes oil sands, coal, petroleum and natural gas) and then extrapolate the carbon emissions / temperature trend line and we can only burn 3/8 of this existing supply without literally burning up the planet < the good news here is once we do the jelly fish in the ocean will thrive quite nicely.
