Per wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:07 am
Strangelove wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:20 am
Per wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:27 am
the current anthropological heating.
Yeah, well, there's no scientific concensus, only 97% of climate scientists are convinced, but I think those 97% make a pretty compelling case for it.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.
At the end of that sentence your article cites this source:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... AL_SPM.pdf
Nowhere in that source report does it say there is a 'there's a 95% probability that this warming trend is the result of human activity'.
Therefore one must conclude that poorly phrased sentence was trying to relay there's a 95% chance that global warming is occurring.
The source does say that it is "extremely likely
" that human activity contributes to the current warming
... so it's safe to conclude that sentence didn't mean what you thought it meant.
But remember, they base their conclusion on the premise that CO2 is a major contributor to global warming.
(I have posted links and videos from experts who say that premise is wrong)
If one accepts the theory that CO2 is a major contributor then one will conclude human activity is extremely likely
to be a big deal.
However many don't accept that theory.
This is what I mean when I say a Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.
A "Scientific consensus" is based on theories/assumptions which may or may not be true
... whereas "Science" deals with provable facts.
There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Your other highlighted
sentence is based on circular reasoning in regards to CO2 and global warming...