I hesitate to throw a wrench into this, but since jem never answered my question -- repeated several times -- about what difference it makes, I'll ask again, hoping for an intelligent answer. I suspected that all of this would come about back when we punched a hole through the ozone layer, and although we did eventually ban CFCs, that's bupkus compared to banning fossil fuels, pesticides, nuclear waste, and whatever else we've been using to poison the air, water, and land. We've shown zero interest in saving ourselves during all this time, much less "saving the planet". But the fact is that the planet couldn't care less about our efforts to save it. What the planet really wants is to rid itself of the pestilence that is us. Once we're gone, it can then go about the business of healing itself. Till then we'll just choke on our own toxins (Christians will wait for the Rapture). I'm afraid the time during which "urgent action" might actually yield some result is past, which makes the whole jem thing so ludicrous. Sorry to be such a bummer, but those who never leave the city have no idea what's going on out here.
your quote sites studies which have been discredited. 1. besides no one would be surprised in 9 billion people farming and turning on their heaters at night would have some impact. Which is all that statement says.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
Since the study was done by Skeptical Science, are there some cartoons you could include from them to help us understand their point?
It is probably a good idea to read a post before replying to it. In your reply, assuming you disagree, it is best to address the point you disagree with and explain why, rather than just replying with random statements unrelated to the post you are replying to. (Just a friendly suggestion.)