Comprehensive coverage

And yet... the world is warming

A senior team of researchers found in an independent analysis that the climate in the Earth's continents is indeed getting warmer, and that the conclusions of the previous research groups were correct, despite the intense criticism that was thrown at them

The temperature of the continents in the last two centuries. The dark blue line depicts the results of the Berkeley project. The lines in yellow, gray and light blue are other groups. Figure: Berkeley Earth Project
The temperature of the continents in the last two centuries. The dark blue line depicts the results of the Berkeley project. The lines in yellow, gray and light blue are other groups. Figure: Berkeley Earth Project

The issue of global warming arouses intense political controversy, especially in the United States. Some are defined (probably by others) as global warming deniers (deniers), and some are defined (also by themselves) as global warming skeptics. There are those who accept the claim that the world is warming, but reject or disapprove of the claim that man is the cause of the warming, and in contrast there are those who challenge the warming itself.

What are the causes of this resistance? First, it is useful to separate blessed scientific skepticism from problematic emotional denial and denial arising from political-economic motives.

In my opinion, most naysayers belong to the denier group, and they use the arguments of the skeptics to reinforce their own feelings or policies. In psychology, this is called confirmation bias: the tendency to accept and reinforce arguments and evidence that support our preconceived opinion and to reject or downplay the importance of arguments and evidence that contradict it. The deniers of global warming choose to amplify the claims made by the skeptics and see them as proof that global warming is not happening while choosing to ignore the plethora of evidence that supports it. Such an approach could have devastating consequences: consider the Yom Kippur War as an example, then call it a "conception".

In recent days, the first results of a study within the "Berkeley Earth Project" were published. The research was conducted by a group of scientists including senior physicists (such as Sol Perlmutter who won the Nobel Prize in Physics this year), and it is designed to independently examine the The data According to them it was determined that the world is getting warmer.

But before we get to the results, a few words about the political background. The Berkeley project, led by astrophysicist Richard Mueller, was established in 2009 following an affair that was named Climategate, a reminder of the Watergate affair that brought down US President Richard Nixon. A group of hackers hacked and stole email correspondence of climate scientists from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and published it online. The timing was no accident, the hacking took place two weeks before the Copenhagen summit that dealt with climate change. The global warming skeptics used these emails to prove that the scientists allegedly manipulated the data to fit their theories, i.e. they manipulated the data. The scientists claimed that the criticism stemmed from a malicious misinterpretation of scientific jargon, and the intention was for accepted and necessary statistical treatment.

The debate, at that time, immediately crossed political lines: Texas Governor Rick Perry, one of the conservative leaders in the US from the Republican Party, claimed that a considerable number of scientists manipulated the data so that dollars would continue to flow to finance their projects.

Rick Perry is a prominent spokesman for a conservative movement in the US that opposes all aspects of science. For example, Perry also supports the intelligent design hypothesis that opposes evolution and opposes embryonic stem cell research (but supports innovative treatment using adult stem cells). Former President George W. Bush was also known for his skepticism about global warming and at the same time froze federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The opposition to evolution and embryonic stem cell research can be explained by religious motives. But the fact that for many in the American conservative camp it also involves opposition to the global warming scenario, and especially to the idea that man is the cause of it, shows that this opposition is deep and emotional. Many of the statements against these scientific theories are combined with counter statements the scientists: Doubting their honesty, their motives, their skill and their professionalism. Science and scientists seem to threaten the conservative wing. They not only threaten the religious worldviews but also the classic fuel-guzzling American lifestyle, it requires a change in habits! And conservatives are not really willing to change habits. If we add to that economic motives, Texas, the state of Perry and Bush, is also the state of the American oil companies, the picture becomes even clearer.

These days, when the rift between right and left in the US is only getting worse, while the fact that a black president sits in the White House is driving the minds of "Tea Party" supporters crazy - science and scientists are increasingly being painted by the conservative right in a left-liberal color. This political opposition is a threat to the development of science in the US, and any threat to science in America threatens science in the entire world.

Against this background, the results of the Berkeley project have an importance that goes beyond the mere confirmation of global warming. Richard Muller, who is at the head of the project, has also been known in the past for his skepticism about warming itself. His motives were of course scientific, and his reasons, as well as those of many of the scientific skeptics, were serious and very worthy of reference. Muller was concerned that many measuring stations in the US and around the world are inaccurate and not properly maintained. He raised concerns that many of the old stations, which allow drawing conclusions over many years, were previously located outside the cities, but today are surrounded by buildings and therefore actually measure the "heat island effect" of the city - that is, the well-documented warming of the air in the big cities, and not the warming the global

As mentioned, Muller headed a group of ten serious scientists, seven of them physicists, and not necessarily climate experts, to re-examine the raw data. The team examined 1.6 billion measurements that came from more than 39,000 temperature measuring stations around the world (on land) and took into account the claims raised by the warming skeptics and dealt with them. He developed his own statistical method to treat in all The data without filtering, he checked separately the stations whose results are defined as "high quality" against the less reliable stations, took into account the measurements in the big cities and isolated the measurements in different rural areas. In short - scientific work "according to the book".

In addition, perhaps to increase the credibility of the research, part of the funding for the project actually came from foundations known for their support of movements that oppose the idea that humans cause global warming.

And the results?

"Our results are very close to those published by previous groups," Mueller writes in The Wall Street Journal, and he did not hide his surprise at this in other interviews. "We believe that this means that these groups were indeed careful and very careful in their work, even though they failed to convince the skeptics of this. They managed to avoid biasing the results in the selection of the data, in their homogenization and in the other corrections they made."

The conclusions refuted the main claims of the skeptics, showing that despite inaccuracies in some of the stations, the trend is clear: since the 50s, the average temperature on land has risen by one degree Celsius, an estimate even higher than that of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, which stood about 0.64 degrees. Looking at the graph shows an impressive match between their results and the results of the three other teams that dealt with the issue and received criticism: the American Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), the American Space Agency (NASA) and a joint team of the British Meteorological Service with scientists at the University of East Anglia - the same scientists who announced Their emails were hacked.

And this is how Muller concludes his article: "Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will cool the spirits a little on this issue of the climate debate."

It is worth noting that the results published this week are not final. The articles have been sent to scientific journals but have not yet undergone peer review - the same quality control that is required in the scientific world from any publication. There is a reason for this: the team is trying to achieve full transparency, as one of the most pointed criticisms of the previous studies was that the data was not open to the public. The team has uploaded the conclusions and data to its website and they hope to receive substantive responses before the final publication.

This free publication is the way "science should be done," says Muller. "This is how I conducted my research for decades. And so everyone did until some journals, especially Science and Nature (the two most prestigious scientific journals), forbade doing so." he adds.

The conclusions are both happy and sad. They are pleasing because they prove once again that, despite everything, the scientific method works correctly. Even if there are mistakes here and there, the scientists do their work faithfully. The very existence of the project proves this.

The results are very sad because they prove once again that the world is warming, and that it cannot be ignored. The project did not deal with the causes of warming and man's part in it. The question of whether humans are responsible for global warming is a very important question, but in my opinion it has been overshadowing the real problem for many years, and it allows leaders to hide behind this obfuscation and avoid facing the real question: the world is warming - what are we doing?

In the article "Victims of Climate Change", in the April-May 2011 issue of Scientific American Israel, we described how the rise in sea level as a result of warming threatens millions living in low-lying areas, such as, for example, the Mekong River Delta in Weintam, one of the world's most important rice basins. How in forms combined with floods threaten life and stability in Africa and Mexico.

Will the results of the project convince the skeptics? Most likely not, especially given Mueller's rather arrogant tone. They will try to find flaws in this study as well, and that's a good thing.

Will they convince the naysayers? I think the answer is definitely not. The denial comes at best from a deep and emotional inner conviction, and at worst from economic interests.

Science is not above criticism. On the contrary, it is proper and justified to check the scientific studies, go back and check, this is part of the scientific process. In recent years, there has been a growing trend for criticism to leave the control of the classic peer control mechanisms and move to the more democratic media of the Internet through blogs that serve as a new and aggressive watchdog for scientists - and that's a good thing. The motives of the scientists, their sources of funding and their interests must also be examined - weeding out and eliminating improper motives is necessary for scientific credibility. It is appropriate to discuss the ethical aspects of scientific research, and a company may set limits when it comes to the conclusion that the ethical limits have been breached. But this is a far cry from the widespread demonization of science and scientists that is being pursued by various circles, and not only in America.

But in the end, even a Republican president in the White House will have to deal with the problems caused by warming, regardless of what caused them.

Avi Blizovsky, the editor of the site of knowledge adds

Elizabeth Mueller, associate director of the Berkeley Earth Department, said she hopes the findings will help cool the global warming debate by addressing the honest concerns of skeptics in a clear and transparent way. "This is especially important now that we are approaching the COP 17 meeting in Durban, South Africa at the end of the year, when participants will discuss targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the next commitment period as well as issues such as financing, technology exchange and international collaborations.

The Earth Department at Berkeley includes physicists, climatologists, and statisticians from California, Oregon, and Georgia who specialize in statistical analysis and assimilation of data series. One of the members of the group, Saul Perlmutter won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011 for his work in the field of cosmology.

The group does not estimate the temperature changes in the oceans which, according to the IPCC, have not warmed as much as the land - only two thirds of a degree Celsius.

In particular, the Berkeley study came to the conclusions that:

* The heat island phenomenon exists but its effect is local and it does not contribute significantly to the increase in land surface temperature, this is because the urban area covers only about 1% of the earth's surface.

* About a third of the temperature measuring sites around the world report cooling in the last 70 years, including many in the USA and Northern Europe, but two thirds of the stations showed warming (of course higher). Historical temperatures from individual sites are prone to noise and are not necessarily reliable, so it is always important to compare the combination of many records to understand global warming patterns.

* The high number of sites reporting a cooling may explain some of the skeptics' arguments, Rudd says. "Global warming is too slow for people to feel directly and if the local forecaster says that the temperature has remained the same or colder than a century ago it is easy to believe him." In fact, it is difficult to measure weather consistently over decades and hundreds of years, and the existence of the sites reporting cooling indicates noise and local variability that can disrupt the data. A correct assessment of the rise of the Earth's surface temperature cannot be made based only on individual stations. Hundreds and thousands of stations are needed to discover and measure the average warming. Only when many nearby thermometers report the same pattern do we know the measurements are reliable.

* Stations rated as low quality were tested in a survey conducted by Antony Watt and his staff. They mainly examined the network of old stations in the US USHCN (the US Historical Climatology Network). These stations show similar patterns to those of stations considered good. The absolute temperatures measured by low-quality stations tended to be higher and less accurate, but the trend they showed was similar to that of the good stations, and Berkeley's analysis concluded that there was no bias from the inclusion of low-quality stations in the survey.


for further reading

Berkeley Earth Project

Project manager Richard Miller's article in the Wall Street Journal

BBC report

Reported in Scientific American

The topic of global warming denial will be one of the topics we will discuss At the joint conference for the Hidan site and the Hamada, 2/11/2011 at 19:00 PM

47 תגובות

  1. Again and again it should be mentioned that the importance of the discussion is not whether man caused the long-term warming, but whether human activity changes and thus harms the usability of the atmosphere for biological creatures on Earth.
    As far as I know, there is almost no debate about this, and even the most prominent creationists have no serious reasons to deny it.

  2. From the chapter in Wikipedia that deals with the "Shem Tov" entry: (

    A cognitive view of reputation
    Until very recently, the cognitive nature of reputation was substantially ignored. This has caused a misunderstanding of the effective role of reputation in a number of real-life domains and the related scientific fields. In the study of cooperation and social dilemmas, the role of reputation as a partner selection mechanism began to be appreciated in the early 1980s.
    Working toward such a definition, reputation as a socially transmitted (meta-) belief (ie, belief about belief) concerns properties of agents, namely their attitudes toward some socially desirable behavior, be it cooperation, reciprocity, or norm-compliance. Reputation plays a crucial role in the Evolution of these behaviors: reputation transmission allows socially desirable behavior to spread. Rather than concentrating on the property only, the cognitive model of reputation also accounts for the transmissibility and therefore for the propagation of reputation.

  3. Stes:
    It is sad to see that brainwashed people turn to attempted personal harm as a means of persuasion.
    In my opinion you are talking big but I am done arguing with you because you don't even have a discussion culture.

    In other words - you ruined your name in my eyes and I have no intention of reading your comments.

    You are welcome not to refer to a person's name and to attribute the same weight to the words of Einstein and the words of Ahmadinejad, but I have not yet fallen on my head and will not join you in this suicidal behavior.

  4. Dear Stes,

    You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
    Not that debating is not a valued sport in my opinion,
    But woe to us as humanity if there was no mechanism
    which maintains the credibility of each and every scientist in particular,
    and of science in general in the eyes of the public.

    Any person can call himself a "scientist".
    The essential difference is the use of the scientific method.
    Those who do work according to her - there is no reason for his good name to be harmed in light of the publication of controversial findings,
    And so there is no reason for him to hesitate to put his career and professional name on the line.

  5. It's sad to hear that people are still stuck in the egocentric paradigm that says something...

    It's even sadder that research is not taken into account even if you don't have a name... This means that we have power concentration points here that prevent certain research and developments from progressing and entering into actual practice in the world, with the professors who take it upon themselves to give their name as the authors of the research..

    By the way, the confusing mind you wrote here about wanting to be good and that it is related to evolution... Did you study psychology or sociology at all?
    Are you saying that man is born with a desire for goodness? Say you also support eugenics and killing future criminals when they are babies, according to the genes?

    Again, science has not found and will never find any connection between behavior and genes directly. And the desire for good is a product of the science management system in a centralized and not really open manner...

    For science to work the way it's supposed to work, it's supposed to be egoless...otherwise a lot of progress is prevented because it's not suitable for people to see that something can be done better and that their old way doesn't work...

    Acts that harm the name of the scientists can also be studies that do not stand up to the latest research in the academic mainstream... However, the studies are completely scientific... which means that if we are talking about the name, there are stopping points for progress.

  6. Stes:
    First of all - science doesn't want anything - just like the chair I'm sitting on doesn't want anything.
    Those who want something are the humans.
    Humans have desires and the desire for good is common to all and it was created in evolution because it is useful.
    I say again: this desire is not always the motive for research, but it is always present and always important.
    Even if all the scientist is interested in is helping humanity, he knows that no one will pay attention to his research if his name is not good, so he must keep his good name, if only because of the need to serve his true motive.
    Personally, I'm really happy that people are concerned about their good name and avoid doing actions that would harm their reputation because actions that harm their name are most likely actions that will harm society.
    True - not always - but those who are worried about their name will not usually refrain from publishing findings that they believe to be correct - they will simply check them better.
    A person who does not fear for his name - whether he is a scientist or a market trader - I would send for a psychiatric examination.
    It was not for nothing that the Sages said "good oil there is good oil".

  7. If the name is important to the scientist or if it affects something, it means that there is something unscientific here... because science itself, if it wants to be clean and true, must come without an ego...

    If there are scientists who care about their own name but not the progress of humanity, I am personally ashamed of them and think of suggesting to all the scientists here if there are any, who care about their own name, maybe consider switching to a slightly more popular profession... maybe singers? Or TV actors? Her name really changes something relative to the profession...

    As soon as a person cares about his name and not the advancement of humanity and science, it means that he is no longer a scientist, he is a celebrity who acts from political motives... and most likely will not bring any significant advancement in science either...

  8. To Mr. "Response to Rothschild":
    First of all - maybe choose a normal nickname for yourself and stick with it and save us the awkwardness of writing a comment that we want to address to you?

    As a matter of fact - you are missing the main point.
    I said myself that the motives can be different and diverse, but you responded to the claim that the name is important to the scientist and thus expressed the position that it is not true.
    The point is that it is true. Always!
    This was not always the purpose for which the research was conducted, but regardless of the purpose for which the research was conducted - the name is important and when a scientist publishes the results of his research, he is always (but always!) anxious for his name, and only very rarely anxious for his money (as your own comment suggests, Efrat responded).
    This is also the reason why famous scientists hesitate much more than young, nameless scientists before publishing the results of their research - especially if they are revolutionary results.

  9. In the end, this "name" we are talking about is a by-product and not the goal...

    Scientists don't do experiments sitting for hours, days, months and years on the object of their research to find a solution to problems or an explanation for the incomprehensible things, just because they want to have a name....

    Otherwise, it is clear that they would not have continued in the field of science, those in the field of reality or television... for which you can make a great "name"... and also receive more sexual attention...

    However, of course, scientists are proud of their successes and tend to emphasize it.. Although this is not the goal for which they started all this..
    A person puts his name as a tool to convey the truth, when he has no practical tool to do so...

    I mean, why should I say that my name is Einstein (not really) and that I am wise and great, if my goal is to prove the atomic theory I am talking about, and my proof is through an experiment... when if the experiment is successful, I will receive the publication of the theory... I will also be given great respect .. but it's just like clapping to express appreciation for a contribution...

    If I wanted to receive appreciation and respect, I would go to my wife.. who would love and hug and give me appreciation and respect =]

  10. To Mr. "Response to Efrat":
    Since your words were a response to Efrat, I inferred that you oppose her claim as if the name is important to scientists.
    This does not appear directly from the content of your response, but only from the fact that you responded to Efrat's words.
    In my opinion, the name is important to them and indeed - in the end - the scientific successes contributed to the good name of the scientists who stood behind them.
    Different scientists act for different reasons.
    Some of them might even think about money but I didn't get the impression that this is a main motive because scientific research is not an optimal way to make money.
    Some work to do good to humanity.
    Some act mainly out of curiosity.
    For anyone who publishes his findings, the name is important because the name also affects the degree of seriousness with which his words are taken.
    It is also clear that everyone begins their scientific work before acquiring a name for themselves, but that does not mean that the name is not important to them.

  11. Are you saying they did it for publicity?
    Or are you arguing that they did it for the honor of helping humanity solve its problems, and the publicity they got was a by-product they didn't mind getting, to encourage the solutions they proposed?

  12. To Mr. "Response to Efrat":
    Something in your hearing is probably defective.
    Have you heard of Einstein?
    Did you hear about Newton?
    Have you heard of Mary Currie?
    In general - all Nobel laureates are famous scientists.
    Are you claiming they didn't make progress?

  13. According to what I've heard, what's important to a scientist is neither his name nor the money he earns... since the great scientists really made progress without a name and without money at all...

  14. Moshe,

    A scientist's "all his money" is usually not that much, if at all.
    What is most important to a scientist (as a general rule, of course) is his professional name.

  15. In short Moses, the scientists will never satisfy the oil gods who fund the Republican Party and the US media who devote all their resources to denying science, and then influence millions around the world. So then, why use the achievements of science, such as the Internet, to search for subtexts?

  16. It is not wise to infer a trend from a 50 year data graph.
    Because it is possible that in a larger range the trend is exactly the opposite.
    In environments with multiple influences such as the capital market for example such graphs are often displayed.
    But those who are willing to risk and predict a definite trend may lose all their money. (many examples exist)
    I wonder if those scientists are willing to bet money on the trend interpretation of the data in a larger range.

  17. We heard this nonsense of introduction a century ago, it was true when man was not, and there were no such concentrations of DTP. I think the video I referred to earlier - only a minute and a half long - explains the subject very well.
    Furthermore, even in the XNUMXs and XNUMXs, the number of those who spoke of cooling was negligible compared to those who expected warming, but they were more vocal. I remember lectures on the greenhouse effect from the early XNUMXs, when there had not yet been such a large increase and an effect on the weather had not yet been felt.
    I tend to be skeptical of propaganda films. People have an interest in denying the warming because they are pro-business, and because of this they don't want to impose on businesses the costs of repairing damage they caused, by ignoring the damage.
    But if we ignore the damage will not disappear, it is already felt, even in Israel. I can't understand why we need to import all the nonsense of the USA, a country that unfortunately is on the way to turning from a scientific power to a power of ignorance and selfishness (just look at how they treat the Occupy Wall Street movement, everything is kosher so as not to hurt the tycoons).

  18. What interview was conducted? The video is the full discussion.

    Every scientist gets exactly the same time and the same questions.

    They both part with a friendly handshake.

    There is a senior scientist there who supports anthropogenic warming
    who explains the side you support - what are you so afraid of, father?

  19. As someone who until recently believed that global warming is the result of human activity and after watching the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (I recommend everyone to watch this serious movie no matter what your opinion is on the subject) which presents convincing scientific arguments against this claim (that humans are to blame - The film does not deny global warming, it only resists identifying the reason for it)....
    The detail that convinced me was when they explained why the claim that the Fed is the cause of warming is incorrect and this phenomenon is actually an indirect response to warming. I will expand, from data collected in the polar glaciers it is possible to know the composition of the air in past years, and when you compare the data on the percentage of CO in the air against the temperature of the Earth, you see that first there is an increase in temperature and only after that (about 100 after the increase!) there is an increase in the percentage of CO "H in the air, the same thing also happens in the cooling of the star. Hence, a change in the percentage of FDH is a result of global warming and not the cause of it.
    They also conducted dozens of tests around the world of the atmosphere at the height where the PADH layer is located (which according to the claim that it is a greenhouse gas should be the hottest layer in the atmosphere or at least hotter than the air at ground level) they found that the temperature was not higher and sometimes it was even lower.
    And when you look at the data from the last century, you see that there is no connection between human activity and global temperature changes. For example, the temperature rose at the height of the economic crisis of the 20s and the economic crisis of the 80s, periods when global industrial activity was at a low ebb and was supposed to emit less CO60 into the air, thus cooling the planet. And precisely at the height of the boom of the world economies there was a drop in temperature (for example in the XNUMX's the BBC produced a program about the danger of global cooling!).
    If anyone can provide me with claims that support the claim that global warming is a result of human activity, I would love to hear about them.

  20. Interesting, remember when I said, not that far back, to watch for research results?

    : )

  21. I will gladly do so after you read all the new material and understand it. It seems that you are impervious to the truth,] even if it is revealed to those who searched in good faith to try to disprove it and on the contrary the situation is even worse than what two thirds of Ma'ala thought, but an entire Ma'ala.
    I have no interest in interviews conducted by rabbis. (And I'm not wrong, the global warming deniers are just as dogmatic as religious preachers, and they seek to twist every finding to suit their needs)

  22. You all throw passwords
    The situation is much more complex, watch the discussion between the two scientists from my first response.

  23. And as Nadav said, even if it is not toxic, which is doubtful, the greenhouse effect it creates, in addition to the environmental destruction that man creates by destroying forests, actually causes an imbalance in nature...which causes the living creatures responsible for cleaning the air from this carbon, to cease to exist, which causes warming Earth.

  24. By the way, carbon dioxide is a poisonous gas... if you want to breathe some car soot...

    How to remind you that Jews were killed in the Holocaust at the beginning? Transfer the dioxide gas that comes out of the exhaust back to the truck box where the Jews were, and it killed them.

    non toxic?

  25. to dew
    No one claims that DTP is a poisonous gas, but that an increase in its atmospheric concentration causes its warming.

  26. Tal:
    As my father answered you - Darwin did not know about genes at all, and the things you described also fit well with his teachings.
    Evolution is not piercing at all and certainly not by much.
    It is allowed to doubt everything, including evolution.
    Doubt is a built-in principle in science and it is so built-in that there is no reason to say that you doubt something because it is obvious in advance.
    There is justification for publishing your doubt only when you believe you have a finding that contradicts the Torah.
    No one has ever demanded that someone who disproves a theory present an alternative theory.
    Disproving the theory is something that stands in itself and a disproved theory will remain disproved whether they find an alternative to it or not.
    There has never been any finding that is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.

  27. It hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, and it hasn't renewed anything at all... After all, most scientists, including the skeptics, accept that there is warming. From here to tying it to a person or to a natural cycle is a long way... Until then, let's take care of the house so that our children can also enjoy what we enjoy today!

  28. Evolution is interested in genetic variation and not how it was achieved. Don't forget that Darwin didn't know Mendel's theory even though it was a formula at the time, all the things you said and that I myself wrote about, even the researchers who conceived them said it was part of the evolutionary fabric and not competing theories, but those who look for holes will find them everywhere even if they don't exist.

  29. By the way, (and although it is not related, but it appeared in the article above) evolution is also allowed to be doubted (and not be considered an apostate in "science"...), and one does not have to offer an alternative Torah in order to be doubted. The theory of evolution is very accurate, there is probably some truth in it, but many things do not add up in it. Updates such as "horizontal gene transfer" and the discovery that flies accustomed to sugar prefer flies accustomed to sugar, actually contradict the original Torah. I anticipate many more updates to evolution, and it is clear to me that today this Torah is far from complete.

  30. Carter I'm with you! I personally believe that the earth is warming (it is hard to doubt that), but it is absolutely not clear that man has anything to do with it. Carbon dioxide is not a poisonous gas, it is agreed upon by everyone that plants breathe it and humans emit it (by breathing, not just through cars). In any case, certainly alternative energy is preferable, but not necessarily carbon dioxide should be the criterion. In any case, it is clear that on both sides there are those who are self-interested and there are those who do real research, one should not bury one's head in the sand and examine the evidence alone. Not because someone has this or that website, so what he says is "science" and the others are just self-interested.

  31. Carter - keep watching Fox, it really is an excellent source of knowledge about global warming. How much nonsense can be said in one sentence. Let's start with the fact that carbon dioxide gas is not innocent because if there is nothing to absorb it back, it causes the greenhouse effect.

  32. The answer to the first question is found in the current research, you just need to not close your ears like the deniers do.
    The answer to the second question - while all the DTP created in nature is swallowed back, the DTP created by man even if in terms of percentages its share is low - is not swallowed and does not balance and therefore it accumulates in the last 200 years. One degree of addition since the fifties (I'm talking about the past, not a forecast for the future) is a lot.

  33. By themselves, the use of the words deny, deny, call out, causes the feeling that the part of science here is smaller than faith and that unhealthy emotions on both sides play too big a role

    Father, the opponents have two weighty claims, one, is it even possible to reliably measure temp for hundreds and thousands of years back. The second, is it the human that causes the change (if any) of the climate in the world and not the activity of our natural forces and they have very little in common

    I don't have a great understanding of the field, but I haven't had the chance to hear answers that explain these two claims

  34. post Scriptum.
    We have to wait for peer review of the Berkeley study before even talking about it.

  35. The big debate is what causes the heating.
    And that is the discussion between the two scientists.
    The Berkeley study did not deal with this issue at all

    Well, you are also an alarmist. What a prophecy you gave

    How many children died in the third world due to the increase in food prices due to the conversion of grain to biodiesel?
    How much money went to projects to reduce the innocent gas carbon dioxide instead of really investing it in ways to protect the environment?

  36. The new study is designed precisely to answer the claims of the deniers, therefore a video produced before it cannot be a response to it.
    The deniers of specialization, just like the deniers of evolution, do not meet the demands of science because they only have complaints - you faked here, you cheated there, they have no alternative theory.

    You have no idea how much damage your friends have done to themselves and their children. They leave behind a world of swords for their children and grandchildren.
    And besides, if an alarm sounds outside because of an Iranian missile, you won't go into the shelter? Or even in that case you will say that the army is just an alarmist and you don't have to listen to it.

  37. An ambivalent response from those who call those who meet the demands of science - denied in the same response.
    is funny

  38. For Carter, the very use of the word alarmist for someone who meets the requirements of science, already indicates the lack of cleanliness of the hands of the video distributors, they are global warming deniers and no research will probably help them, after the brainwashing they went through from the Republicans.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.