How many Global Warming alarmists do we have here?

[AKM]

You boys have a good answer for this shiite?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/09/08/aveneqe8.jpg

[El Laton Caliente]

Global warming, and cooling, happens. Man-made global warming is at most so tiny an effect as to be completely insignificant.

[El Jefe]

Why do you people hate the earth?

http://s9.postimg.org/8kfnf2q5b/gores_bear.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

[LAGC]

Global warming, and cooling, happens. Man-made global warming is at most so tiny an effect as to be completely insignificant.

I wouldn't call a 0.8 degree Celsius rise in global mean temperature over just the last 100 years "insignificant."

Keep in mind, we are SUPPOSED to be in a normal cooling cycle right now, so we should expect expanding ice sheets. But just the fact that so many of our hottest years on record have occurred in just the past 15 years SHOULD be alarming, to say the least.

I'm not even going to bother posting pics of Glacier National Park -- what's left of it, anyway.

Too many folks caught up in the politics of it all, not willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

[El Jefe]

I wouldn't call a 0.8 degree Celsius rise in global mean temperature over just the last 100 years "insignificant."

Keep in mind, we are SUPPOSED to be in a normal cooling cycle right now, so we should expect expanding ice sheets. But just the fact that so many of our hottest years on record have occurred in just the past 15 years SHOULD be alarming, to say the least.

I'm not even going to bother posting pics of Glacier National Park -- what's left of it, anyway.

Too many folks caught up in the politics of it all, not willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

NASA has concluded that you are an idiot. Sorry.

[LAGC]

NASA has concluded that you are an idiot. Sorry.

Have they now?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

[N/A]

Have they now?



Yes, and the major concensus is that they are right......you're an idiot.

[LAGC]

Yes, and the major concensus is that they are right......you're an idiot.

Joint Science Academies' Statement:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Read it and weep.

[coppertales]

The United States is a small country and the only one with this global warming histeria. The rest of the world, except a few european countries, don't give a rat's ass about GW. Here in this country, we have cleaned up the air so much, the sun is warming the ground at a much higher rate than before. I grew up in the 50s and know how it used to be. I watch the record temps during the weather programs on TV. Most of the record high temps in the DFW area were set around 1911. There certainly was no global warming back then. Back in the 70s, the activists were saying we were entering a mini ice age. What happened to that? Question for you GW people. Back when the ice age happened and covered most of the northern hemisphere with several miles of ice, where did all that water come from? chris3

[N/A]

Joint Science Academies' Statement:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Read it and weep.

One fool quoting other fools who have found a cash cow does not for science make.

[Schuetzenman]

I wouldn't call a 0.8 degree Celsius rise in global mean temperature over just the last 100 years "insignificant."

Keep in mind, we are SUPPOSED to be in a normal cooling cycle right now, so we should expect expanding ice sheets. But just the fact that so many of our hottest years on record have occurred in just the past 15 years SHOULD be alarming, to say the least.

I'm not even going to bother posting pics of Glacier National Park -- what's left of it, anyway.

Too many folks caught up in the politics of it all, not willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

And the koolaid drinking dumbass appears on schedule. All the data you are quoting is a lie, they fudged the data to make their point. Ignored anything that didn't prove their point and shut down temperature stations in the country side only to count ones on the roofs of buildings in cities to skew the data.

[AKM]

I'm not even going to bother posting pics of Glacier National Park -- what's left of it, anyway.
.The Wiki page for GNP makes it sound like Shangri-La!

I guess they didn't get the word that GNP is supposed to be nothing more than a dump!




Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

[stinker]

Joint Science Academies' Statement:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Read it and weep.

Well....

Notes and references

1 This statement concentrates on climate change associated with global warming. We use the UNFCCC definition of climate change, which is ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’.

Not THAT'S a credible source aint it?

2 IPCC (2001). Third Assessment Report. We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Not THAT'S a credible source aint it?

3 IEA (2004). World Energy Outlook 4. Although long-term projections of future world energy demand and supply are highly uncertain, the World Energy Outlook produced by the International Energy Agency (IEA) is a useful source of information about possible future energy scenarios.

Hey, i know those people!
They're the ones employing the gypsies with the glass ball in the tent at the carnival side show right?
Don't ya just love how they give themselves a disclaimer in advance so you can't call their BS later on when it's wrong?

4 With special emphasis on the first principle of the UNFCCC, which states: ‘The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof’.

Blah blah blah

5 Recognising and building on the IPCC’s ongoing work on emission scenarios.

Blah blah blah
Keep the lie going so the gravy train of money doesn't stop.

So...

The consensus is in and the evidence irrefutable.
1. That is a purely propaganda BS link.
2. You're an idiot.

[LAGC]

shut down temperature stations in the country side only to count ones on the roofs of buildings in cities to skew the data.

Wrong. Do you want to know where over 93% of the warming is occurring? Our oceans. No shit.

Don't make me bump my thread about how global warming is turning our oceans acidic from all the carbonic acid building up.

It's going to be harder and harder to deny as our ocean ecosystems start drastically changing, entire fish species dying off, effecting the whole food chain.

Most of us younger folks (under 50) will live to see entire cities being flooded, but we're already noticing the tropical storms and hurricanes getting more and more intense. Katrina was just kid's play compared to what's in store for us soon.

[LAGC]

The Wiki page for GNP makes it sound like Shangri-La!

I guess they didn't get the word that GNP is supposed to be nothing more than a dump!

No, not at all. It's still a very beautiful place. It's just that the glaciers have almost completely receded. I went through there 25 years ago as a kid and just recently a couple years back. The difference couldn't be more stark.

The glaciers, which used to cover entire mountainsides, are now almost completely gone.

[N/A]

So, lety's see...if I post info that says the cycles last 100,000 years, and of the cycle 80,000 to 90,000 years are ice age and 10,000 to 20,000 are warm periods....and you say we should be entering the cooling period? Damn, in that case, I'd think you would want mankind to extend the warming period and delay cooling if possible. I wouldn't be too happy to look at 80,000 years of ice ages myself.

You're still an idiot that believs anything that sounds "intellectual", rather than using your own common sense.

[alismith]

I wouldn't call a 0.8 degree Celsius rise in global mean temperature over just the last 100 years "insignificant."

Keep in mind, we are SUPPOSED to be in a normal cooling cycle right now, so we should expect expanding ice sheets. But just the fact that so many of our hottest years on record have occurred in just the past 15 years SHOULD be alarming, to say the least.

I'm not even going to bother posting pics of Glacier National Park -- what's left of it, anyway.

Too many folks caught up in the politics of it all, not willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

Wrong. The last ice age was about 10,000 years ago. The average time between ice ages is about 15,000 years. Based on the averages, we still should be in a warming trend, at least, for the next 2,500 years, THEN it starts cooling off.

There will be mini-spikes in temperatures, but they won't change the trend.

Global warming won't be so bad. The tropics will expand northward and southward about 500-800 miles, making Canada one of the future bread baskets of the world (like the US is right now). Florida temps will move up into the mid-western states. Tropical temps will produce vast new tropical forests and wildlife.

Of course, this will have an effect on the ice caps and many cold-adapted life forms will come under extreme stress, with a lot going extinct. BUT, this has happened before and will happen again. Polar bears and penguins, etc., will, probably go extinct, but so did the Cave Bear, Dire Wolf, Wooly Mammoth, and Wooly Rhino.

Never fear, other species will fill the niches left behind, and life will go on.

So, based on the averages, we have not yet reached our peak warming temperatures. We still have 2,500 years to go. Human activities will have little, if anything, to do with it.

I doubt I'll be around to see it.

[El Jefe]

Have they now?



Dude, that graph is 13 years out of date. What NASA has been saying these past few years refutes your nonsense..

Hey, while your at it why don't you post the infamous, scam hockey stick graph that until recently was considered boilerplate, but now no one will back.

[LAGC]

Global warming won't be so bad. The tropics will expand northward and southward about 500-800 miles, making Canada one of the future bread baskets of the world (like the US is right now). Florida temps will move up into the mid-western states. Tropical temps will produce vast new tropical forests and wildlife.

Of course, this will have an effect on the ice caps and many cold-adapted life forms will come under extreme stress, with a lot going extinct. BUT, this has happened before and will happen again. Polar bears and penguins, etc., will, probably go extinct, but so did the Cave Bear, Dire Wolf, Wooly Mammoth, and Wooly Rhino.

Never fear, other species will fill the niches left behind, and life will go on.

I have no doubt life will go on... the only question is: will it be life compatible with humankind?

[silentkilla]

I have no doubt life will go on... the only question is: will it be life compatible with humankind?

2,500 years man! why worry..... you will be dust as so the rest of us....

[stinker]

I have no doubt life will go on... the only question is: will it be life compatible with humankind?

If it isn't, then no biggie.

We have better guns than most fuzzy beasties out there.
An added plus would be if they're really tasty too.

I think you've been watching your bootleg copy of After Earth too many times in a row.
It's just make believe dude.

[El Laton Caliente]

I wouldn't call a 0.8 degree Celsius rise in global mean temperature over just the last 100 years "insignificant."

Keep in mind, we are SUPPOSED to be in a normal cooling cycle right now, so we should expect expanding ice sheets. But just the fact that so many of our hottest years on record have occurred in just the past 15 years SHOULD be alarming, to say the least.

I'm not even going to bother posting pics of Glacier National Park -- what's left of it, anyway.

Too many folks caught up in the politics of it all, not willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

Have any idea how statistically insignificant a couple hundred years data out of a few billion years is?

Where is the data and peer review on that .8C of anthropogenic global warming? I'll tell you, they never let it be peer reviewed. Why? They know it will not stand.

Sun spot cycles, solar flare cycles and orbital cycles make something like 96% of the heating-cooling effect on the earth. Of the remaining about 4%, water vapor is the greenhouse gas that supplies about 94% of the effect. Carbon Dioxide is less than 1% of the 4% effect that is greenhouse gas. Do the math, that is less than 0.004% of the total heating effect, statistically insignificant. And of that nature supplies the vast majority of the carbon dioxide from forest fire and mainly volcanos. All of humanity puts out the same air pollution in one year a volcano does in one week and at any given time there are 5 to 7 active volcanos.

We can't make a real difference even if we wanted to. During the 1970s "ice age" hype, MIT was asked what it would take to warm the earth. MIT determined that if humans burned all available fuel on earth in one year, the earth's temperature would not increase 1º. They then started looking at orbital reflectors because the only power source large enough that can warm the earth is the sun.

[imanaknut]

I have no doubt we are seeing global warming. Scientists have proven that Indiana was under a mile thick sheet of ice about 10,000 or so years ago. Since that ice is no longer here, we must be warming.

I think it has to do with that bright thing in the sky during the daytime, called the sun!

[silentkilla]

I have no doubt life will go on... the only question is: will it be life compatible with humankind?

thats up to the lord and him only brother...

[sevlex]

The man-made global warming scare has been a money-making scam for the privileged few from the beginning:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

[LAGC]

Sun spot cycles, solar flare cycles and orbital cycles make something like 96% of the heating-cooling effect on the earth. Of the remaining about 4%, water vapor is the greenhouse gas that supplies about 94% of the effect. Carbon Dioxide is less than 1% of the 4% effect that is greenhouse gas. Do the math, that is less than 0.004% of the total heating effect, statistically insignificant. And of that nature supplies the vast majority of the carbon dioxide from forest fire and mainly volcanos. All of humanity puts out the same air pollution in one year a volcano does in one week and at any given time there are 5 to 7 active volcanos.

Are you a climatologist? I didn't think so. So pardon me if I put more stock in what they have to say, rather than what some anonymous dudes on the Internet claim to be experts on.

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

http://theconsensusproject.com/

Scientists aren't making this shit up. The only reason so many conservatives are knee-jerking against it is because powerful fossil-fuel interests have bought off many of the right-wing think tanks, which feed the pundits from Rush Limbaugh to FAUX News, who happily regurgitate the astroturf propaganda to their listeners/viewers.

The deniers aren't going to be able to keep their heads stuck in the sand for much longer. The poisoned tree is beginning to bear fruit. Severe weather events are only going to magnify in the coming years ahead.

[N/A]

Are you a climatologist? I didn't think so. So pardon me if I put more stock in what they have to say, rather than what some anonymous dudes on the Internet claim to be experts on.

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

.

.


Are you a climatologist? I didn't think so. So pardon me if I put no stock in what you cherry pick off the internet...you're still a useful idiot.

[silentkilla]

The deniers aren't going to be able to keep their heads stuck in the sand for much longer. The poisoned tree is beginning to bear fruit. Severe weather events are only going to magnify in the coming years ahead.
i do agree with you on this point. if people had been in al on april 2011 they would agree the weather is getting worse every year.

[Schuetzenman]

Wrong. Do you want to know where over 93% of the warming is occurring? Our oceans. No shit.

Don't make me bump my thread about how global warming is turning our oceans acidic from all the carbonic acid building up.

It's going to be harder and harder to deny as our ocean ecosystems start drastically changing, entire fish species dying off, effecting the whole food chain.

Most of us younger folks (under 50) will live to see entire cities being flooded, but we're already noticing the tropical storms and hurricanes getting more and more intense. Katrina was just kid's play compared to what's in store for us soon.

Dumbass carbonic acid decomposes in mere minutes as it is not a stabile compound.

[silentkilla]

Are you a climatologist? I didn't think so. So pardon me if I put no stock in what you cherry pick off the internet...you're still a useful idiot.

he might say a few jacked up thing every once in a while but he is nowhere near an idiot.

[silentkilla]

Dumbass carbonic acid decomposes in mere minutes as it is not a stabile compound.

oh shit. i'm backing up you all are on him hard... later

[LAGC]

Dumbass carbonic acid decomposes in mere minutes as it is not a stabile compound.

It does, but new acid keeps forming faster than the old can decompose. That is why our oceans are turning more acidic.

The good news is, if we shut off the spigot (reign in carbon emissions) our oceans should return to normal pH balance in a very short period of time.

[Schuetzenman]

i do agree with you on this point. if people had been in al on april 2011 they would agree the weather is getting worse every year.

Weather varies, that's why it's called Weather. Climate is something totally different. In the past the planet had an average temp of over 100F for million of years. The sun is what causes climate long term. We have no control over the sun. What ever it dishes out in energy is what we get to cause climate and overall temperature and rain for that matter. 275 years before the Black Plague wiped out 1/3rd of all the people in Europe the climate was warm enough to grow grapes and Wheat in Scandinavia. Food production from warm weather and long growing seasons created a Golden Era and population boomed. Then it all went cold, the crops that supported the new population failed, the growing seasons shortened, the vineyards died, the wheat crops failed and famine started. Then the Plague showed up and the rest is History as they say. For hundreds of years afterward the climate was very cold, massive snow fall. This situation can come again if the sun dictates it.

LADumbass thinks the planet getting warmer is a bad thing, but just wait until we get another big cold shot and summers are 2 months long at best and snow builds up to 10' or more down to TN in the winter. People will wish for global warming, guaranteed.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Too many folks caught up in the politics of it all, not willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

You mean like how you completely ignored this image from NASA?


You boys have a good answer for this shiite?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/09/08/aveneqe8.jpg


Why don't you sit back and let the real scientists handle this? The way it's looking, you'll never join their ranks.

[silentkilla]

Weather varies, that's why it's called Weather. Climate is something totally different. In the past the planet had an average temp of over 100F for million of years. The sun is what causes climate long term. We have no control over the sun.

the climate does affect the weather. you have a cooler climate you get snow/ice, you have a warmer climate you get what got in 2011, tornadoes hurricane's and such

[Kadmos]

I have no doubt we are seeing global warming. Scientists have proven that Indiana was under a mile thick sheet of ice about 10,000 or so years ago. Since that ice is no longer here, we must be warming.

I think it has to do with that bright thing in the sky during the daytime, called the sun!

I'm pretty sure the sun was there 10,000+ years ago also.


One thing about those pictures, they only show area, not thickness. It's the actual mass that makes the difference. Without knowing the thickness there is no way to tell if there is really more ice or less.


Just pointing out a fact. I'm far from sold on the global warming thing.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Where were all those hurricanes this year "climate scientists" predicted to us destroying the planet types?

[LAGC]

Where were all those hurricanes this year "climate scientists" predicted to us destroying the planet types?

Hurricane season ain't over yet. Remember the worst hurricane of 2012 was Sandy, which helped President Obama get re-elected, and that didn't take place until late October.

So we're not out of the woods yet.

[silentkilla]

I'm pretty sure the sun was there 10,000+ years ago also.


One thing about those pictures, they only show area, not thickness. It's the actual mass that makes the difference. Without knowing the thickness there is no way to tell if there is really more ice or less.


Just pointing out a fact. I'm far from sold on the global warming thing.

good point! see how the first pic is so much whiter in the middle than the second? seems to me thats pretty thick ice. what if its melting then refreezing over a larger area?

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

One thing about those pictures, they only show area, not thickness. It's the actual mass that makes the difference. Without knowing the thickness there is no way to tell if there is really more ice or less.


Other than a CONTINENT worth of ice coverage?

Even if that ice is "thin" there's more of it.

Now why don't you show us your credentials so we can see why you feel you have more authority to speak on this subject than NASA?

[N/A]

Other than a CONTINENT worth of ice coverage?

Even if that ice is "thin" there's more of it.

Now why don't you show us your credentials so we can see why you feel you have more authority to speak on this subject than NASA?

Fail...better go read up on it.

[Kadmos]

good point! see how the first pic is so much whiter in the middle than the second? seems to me thats pretty thick ice. what if its melting then refreezing over a larger area?

Yeah, that's kinda how it looks to me also.

Could be less ice, could be more, could be the exact same amount.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Fail...better go read up on it.
Sure, when you learn how to read a map.

[silentkilla]

Yeah, that's kinda how it looks to me also.

Could be less ice, could be more, could be the exact same amount.

if it was more you would be able to varify it on the space picture. it would be alot whiter the same as in the first pic. the second has spread over a larger area but IMHO i think it is alot thinner. therefore the water is evaporating or melting from the glaciers . and the melt off is going into the ocean or refreezing into a thin but larger area of ice tricking the eye. IMO we are fucked sooner than later.......

[silentkilla]

Sure, when you learn how to read a map.

easy big dog. lol

[Kadmos]

Other than a CONTINENT worth of ice coverage?

Even if that ice is "thin" there's more of it.

Now why don't you show us your credentials so we can see why you feel you have more authority to speak on this subject than NASA?


My understanding (8th grade earth science ;) ) is that some of that ice can be rather thick. Even a 10% thinning and spreading out would causes hundreds or thousands of miles worth of area coverage.

We know that it covers vastly different areas according to the season already, just normal seasonal variation. Just one cool summer would mean that coverage would last longer.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/North_pole_september_ice-pack_1978-2002.png/120px-North_pole_september_ice-pack_1978-2002.png

Ice coverage in September 1978-2002 (average)




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/North_pole_february_ice-pack_1978-2002.png/120px-North_pole_february_ice-pack_1978-2002.png

Ice coverage in February 1978-2002 (average)


That's just the normal seasonal variation, like I said, one cool summer and those averages change

[N/A]

Sure, when you learn how to read a map.

I can read a map...can you tell the difference between AREA and VOLUME....a square foot of glass 1/8th inch thick is not more glass than 1/2 square foot of glass 6 inches thick.

Scientist measure the ice up there by EXTENT and VOLUME. Two different things to measure ice by.

Now, I have to shut down, pack up and leave town to go to work, so you can have the last snarky reply. :D

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

We know that it covers vastly different areas according to the season already, just normal seasonal variation. Just one cool summer would mean that coverage would last longer.

Since you couldn't read the bold red type displaying "August 2012 and August 2013" in the NASA images I'd say it's pretty obvious you did poorly in 8th grade science.

[Kadmos]

Now, I have to shut down, pack up and leave town to go to work, so you can have the last snarky reply. :D

Safe travels.

[silentkilla]

I can read a map...can you tell the difference between AREA and VOLUME....a square foot of glass 1/8th inch thick is not more glass than 1/2 square foot of glass 6 inches thick.

Scientist measure the ice up there by EXTENT and VOLUME. Two different things to measure ice by.

Now, I have to shut down, pack up and leave town to go to work, so you can have the last snarky reply. :D

N/A.. be safe bro. GONZO.. you two behave. this is a very interesting subject. lets not get the ROADHOUSE in this globalwarming shit. it already gets hot enough down there sometimes... lol

[Kadmos]

Since you couldn't read the bold red type displaying "August 2012 and August 2013" in the NASA images I'd say it's pretty obvious you did poorly in 8th grade science.

I got an "A", of course ;)

Or a cool winter, followed by a mild spring, whichever.

It's not magic ice, it came from the natural processes.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

I got an "A", of course ;)

Ah, another victim of low school standards I see.

[Kadmos]

Ah, another victim of low school standards I see.

At one of the top private schools in the country.

[Schuetzenman]

if it was more you would be able to varify it on the space picture. it would be alot whiter the same as in the first pic. the second has spread over a larger area but IMHO i think it is alot thinner. therefore the water is evaporating or melting from the glaciers . and the melt off is going into the ocean or refreezing into a thin but larger area of ice tricking the eye. IMO we are fucked sooner than later.......

So you've swallowed the koolaid of man made Global Warming too. Jezus!

[silentkilla]

So you've swallowed the koolaid of man made Global Warming too. Jezus!

not neccesarily. but we are poluting the shit out of our atmosphere. with IIRC three big ass holes in it already, that will cause the sun and other thing to affect us badly and i think this is where most of our higher temeratures are coming from. we are doing this and will meet our demise because of it one day.

[El Jefe]

not neccesarily. but we are poluting the shit out of our atmosphere. with IIRC three big ass holes in it already, that will cause the sun and other thing to affect us badly and i think this is where most of our higher temeratures are coming from. we are doing this and will meet our demise because of it one day.

No. Sorry, Bro, but no.

[Oswald Bastable]

Are you a climatologist? I didn't think so. So pardon me if I put no stock in what you cherry pick off the internet...you're still a useful idiot.

Come on N/A...you know lefty is working on his degree in Double Naught Rocket Spy Sturgeoning...

[El Laton Caliente]

Are you a climatologist? I didn't think so. So pardon me if I put more stock in what they have to say, rather than what some anonymous dudes on the Internet claim to be experts on.

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

http://theconsensusproject.com/


Scientists aren't making this shit up. The only reason so many conservatives are knee-jerking against it is because powerful fossil-fuel interests have bought off many of the right-wing think tanks, which feed the pundits from Rush Limbaugh to FAUX News, who happily regurgitate the astroturf propaganda to their listeners/viewers.

The deniers aren't going to be able to keep their heads stuck in the sand for much longer. The poisoned tree is beginning to bear fruit. Severe weather events are only going to magnify in the coming years ahead.


No, the rant comes from a report by a group, large group of climatologists, planetologists and geologists from a report given to the British parliament after the climate gate scandal. It is off cuff and by memory, but as close as I can remember.

I KNOW where your 97% to 98% came from; a survey of global warming researchers. i.e. people paid to get the results "proving" gorebull warming was man made... I've seen that debunked several times before...

[El Laton Caliente]

not neccesarily. but we are poluting the shit out of our atmosphere. with IIRC three big ass holes in it already, that will cause the sun and other thing to affect us badly and i think this is where most of our higher temeratures are coming from. we are doing this and will meet our demise because of it one day.

Read back... One volcano puts out more MORE CO2, CO, Sulfur Compounds, and even heavy metal vapors in ONE week than all of mankind puts out in a year.

There are NORMALLY five to seven active volcanos at any given time.

[imanaknut]

not neccesarily. but we are poluting the shit out of our atmosphere. with IIRC three big ass holes in it already, that will cause the sun and other thing to affect us badly and i think this is where most of our higher temeratures are coming from. we are doing this and will meet our demise because of it one day.

Do you remember when not too many years ago, our manufacturing plants along Lake Erie polluted it so badly that scientists declared it dead and that it would never recover. Funny how with a little care not to continue the pollution, the laws put in place by The Being that designed this planet went to work, and today Lake Erie is one great fishing location, and very safe for boating and swimming.

Do you remember during the first Gulf War when Saddam Hussein lit the oil fields on fire, and that late "great" scientist Carl Sagan declared that the smoke from those fires would cover the earth plunging us into a massive "nuclear winter" as he called it. Amazing that after the fires were put out, it rained washing the crap from the atmosphere, and guess what, life went on in the rest of the world and never knew the difference.

[Krupski]

You boys have a good answer for this shiite?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html



The planet may be warming or cooling, but man's insignificant activities, CO2 and cow farts have nothing to do with it.

Mother Nature and the Sun decide what the earth's climate will be, and there's nothing we could do about it if we wanted to.

[Krupski]

Too many folks caught up in the politics of it all, not willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

That's hilarious... coming from you. :lool:

[Krupski]

Joint Science Academies' Statement:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Read it and weep.

See this: http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/img0.html

Read it and weep.

[Krupski]

I'm pretty sure the sun was there 10,000+ years ago also.


One thing about those pictures, they only show area, not thickness. It's the actual mass that makes the difference. Without knowing the thickness there is no way to tell if there is really more ice or less.


Just pointing out a fact. I'm far from sold on the global warming thing.

At night, how do you know that the sun is still shining?

It might be like a refrigerator light! :)

[Krupski]

Ah, another victim of low school standards I see.:yeah:

[silentkilla]

Do you remember when not too many years ago, our manufacturing plants along Lake Erie polluted it so badly that scientists declared it dead and that it would never recover. Funny how with a little care not to continue the pollution, the laws put in place by The Being that designed this planet went to work, and today Lake Erie is one great fishing location, and very safe for boating and swimming.

Do you remember during the first Gulf War when Saddam Hussein lit the oil fields on fire, and that late "great" scientist Carl Sagan declared that the smoke from those fires would cover the earth plunging us into a massive "nuclear winter" as he called it. Amazing that after the fires were put out, it rained washing the crap from the atmosphere, and guess what, life went on in the rest of the world and never knew the difference.

maybe you guys are right.... i definatly hope so anyways. you know most of you guys are like brothers to me i just don't want to see any of you guys hurt. it worries me. what goes on in our world.

[alismith]

maybe you guys are right.... i definatly hope so anyways. you know most of you guys are like brothers to me i just don't want to see any of you guys hurt. it worries me. what goes on in our world.

To that I say, "Valar morghulis." ;)

[silentkilla]

To that I say, "Valar morghulis." ;)

all men must die? yes it does happen

[El Laton Caliente]

Too many folks caught up in the politics of it all, not willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

If you say "consensus" in reference to the scientific method, you automatically lose the argument because you are too stupid to understand science... look it up dumb ass...

[LAGC]

If you say "consensus" in reference to the scientific method, you automatically lose the argument because you are too stupid to understand science... look it up dumb ass...

It's not in reference to the scientific method, but to the well-established THEORY of anthropogenic climate change.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Many rounds of using the scientific method went into the formation of the hypotheses that led to the formation of the theory though.

The consensus comes when a very large group of scientists, all conducting their own experiments, come to the same conclusion.

There really is no debate in the scientific community any more on this issue. It's settled science. But you wouldn't know it from news media reports, which purposefully try to make it look like there's a controversy when there really is none. (Because it boosts their ratings, of course.)

And of course, you can find articles "debunking" anything on the Internet. Look up "moon landing hoax" and you can find just as many articles claiming its a conspiracy as you can legit articles proving we were there.

That doesn't mean its not true though, just because a noisy bunch of kooks on the Internet claim it to be a fraud.

[El Laton Caliente]

Bullshit

http://www.amazon.com/The-Deniers-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zeGY8zbzc8

[El Laton Caliente]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be8Ymq21kU4

[El Laton Caliente]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3mvz6QwXXE

[El Laton Caliente]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

30,000 Scientists sue Al Gore... some consensus...

There are hundreds of these if you look. There are far more deniers than supports in the real scientific community. The supporters are generally not in hard science or are paid "global warming researchers".

[weevil]

The planet may be warming or cooling, but man's insignificant activities, CO2 and cow farts have nothing to do with it.

Mother Nature and the Sun decide what the earth's climate will be, and there's nothing we could do about it if we wanted to.



^^^^
THIS!


Much as we might like to believe we are masters of our destiny and thus buy into the line of shit the con-men and snake-oil salesmen are selling.....the fact is we're just along for the ride.

If Mother Nature decides to burn us off or put the planet in a deep freeze there's really not a damn thing we can do about, and buying all the carbon credits in the world won't change that.

[LAGC]

(Denialist Propaganda)

Why yes, post a few Youtube videos, where anyone can claim to be an expert on anything, even if they are completely ignorant of the underlying science involved.

:laugh:

How about we look at the facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

CONCURRING:

Academies of science (general science)

Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.
Joint national science academy statements

2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[27] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[28]
2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[29]
2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[30]
2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” :

A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.
— The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences , [31]

2008 In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.” The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.[32]
2009 In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid." The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.[22]

Polish Academy of Sciences

In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Polska Akademia Nauk), which has not been a signatory to joint national science academy statements issued a declaration endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and stating:

it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas.

Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.
PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.[33]

Additional national science academy and society statements

American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[34]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies in 2008 published FASTS Statement on Climate Change[35] which states:

Global climate change is real and measurable...To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.

United States National Research Council through its Committee on the Science of Climate Change in 2001, published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[36] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[36]

Royal Society of New Zealand having signed onto the first joint science academy statement in 2001, released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public":

The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[37]

The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance reflected in its participation in joint national science academies' statements on anthropogenic global warming. According to the Telegraph, "The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public".[38] In May 2010, it announced that it "is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components."[39] The society says that it is three years since the last such document was published and that, after an extensive process of debate and review,[40][41] the new document was printed in September 2010. It summarises the current scientific evidence and highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The society has stated that "this is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS".[39] The introduction includes this statement:

There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.

International science academies

African Academy of Sciences in 2007 was a signatory to the "statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change", the joint statement of African science academies, organized through the Network of African Science Academies, confirming anthropogenic global warming and presented to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts in 2007 issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:

Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future.[42]

European Science Foundation in a 2007 position paper [43] states:

There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change... On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.

InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[44][45] the InterAcademy Council issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.

Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[46] Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[47]

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) in 2007, issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:[48]

As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

Physical and chemical sciences

American Chemical Society[49]
American Institute of Physics[50]
American Physical Society[51]
Australian Institute of Physics[52]
European Physical Society[53]

Earth sciences
American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007[54], and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."

American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:

A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.

Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.
Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.[56]

European Federation of Geologists

In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[57] (EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :

The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.

It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.
CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.[58]

European Geosciences Union

In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC

represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[59]

Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[60]
Geological Society of America

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[61]

Geological Society of London

In November 2010, the Geological Society of London issued the position statement Climate change: evidence from the geological record:

The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater. There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.[62]

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.”[63]
National Association of Geoscience Teachers

In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers[64] (NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that "Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities":

NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[65]

Meteorology and oceanography
American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:

Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[67]

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that

We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.[68]

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

In November 2009, a letter to the Canadian Parliament by The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:

Rigorous international research, including work carried out and supported by the Government of Canada, reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life.[69]

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.”[70]
World Meteorological Organization

In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.” [71]
Paleoclimatology
American Quaternary Association

The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated

Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.[72]

International Union for Quaternary Research

The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.

Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide — to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.[73]

Biology and life sciences

Life science organizations have outlined the dangers climate change pose to wildlife.

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[74]
American Institute of Biological Sciences. In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement.[75][76] The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.[77]
American Society for Microbiology[78]
Australian Coral Reef Society[79]
Institute of Biology (UK)[80]
Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[81] and the UNFCCC.[82]
The Wildlife Society (international)[83]

Human health

A number of health organizations have warned about the numerous negative health effects of global warming

American Academy of Pediatrics[84]
American College of Preventive Medicine[85]
American Medical Association[86]
American Public Health Association[87]
Australian Medical Association in 2004[88] and in 2008[89]
World Federation of Public Health Associations[90]
World Health Organization[91]

There is now widespread agreement that the Earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.

The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather.

Miscellaneous

A number of other national scientific societies have also endorsed the opinion of the IPCC:

American Astronomical Society[92]
American Statistical Association[93]
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)[94]
International Association for Great Lakes Research[95]
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[96]

Non-committal
American Association of Petroleum Geologists

As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.[97]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[10] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships… if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position… The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.[98]

AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG’s Global Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee determined:

Climate change is peripheral at best to our science […] AAPG does not have credibility in that field […] and as a group we have no particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[99]

American Association of State Climatologists

The Association has no current statement. The previous statement, discussed below, became inoperative in 2008.[100]

The 2001 statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate:

Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system.... The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate.[101]

American Geological Institute

In 1999, the American Geological Institute (AGI) issued the position statement ‘’Global Climate Change’’:

The American Geological Institute (AGI) strongly supports education concerning the scientific evidence of past climate change, the potential for future climate change due to the current building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and the policy options available. Understanding the interactions between the solid Earth, the oceans, the biosphere, and the atmosphere both in the present and over time is critical for accurately analyzing and predicting global climate change due to natural processes and possible human influences.[102]

American Institute of Professional Geologists

In 2009, the American Institute of Professional Geologists[103] (AIPG) sent a statement to President Barack Obama and other US government officials:

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.[104]

Concerned that the original statement issued in March 2009 was too ambiguous, AIPG’s National Executive Committee approved a revised position statement issued in January 2010:

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring regardless of cause. AIPG supports continued research into all forces driving climate change.[105]

In August 2009, the Ohio Section of AIPG submitted a position statement to Senators Brown and Voinovich opposing H.R. 2454, the Markey-Waxman climate bill. The statement professed that “there is no scientific evidence supporting…. the premise that human production of CO2 gas is responsible for ‘global warming’….” The statement went on to challenge the findings of the IPCC and made numerous references to articles published by the Heartland Institute.[106]

In March 2010, AIPG’s Executive Director issued a statement regarding polarization of opinions on climate change within the membership and announced that the AIPG Executive had made a decision to cease publication of articles and opinion pieces concerning climate change in AIPG’s news journal, The Professional Geologist.[107] The Executive Director said that “the question of anthropogenicity of climate change is contentious.”[108]
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

The science of global climate change is still evolving and our understanding of this vital Earth system is not as developed as is the case for other Earth systems such as plate tectonics. What is known with certainty is that regardless of the causes, our global climate will continue to change for the foreseeable future... The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result.[109]

DISSENTING

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Yeah, because Wikipedia is soooooo much more credible and incorruptable than Youtube...

[LAGC]

Yeah, because Wikipedia is soooooo much more credible and incorruptable than Youtube...

The nice thing about Wikipedia is everything reputable is sourced, so you can click on the little index links to read the original source of the info.

Wikipedia is actually pretty good for science-related articles, purely political stuff not so much.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Wikipedia is actually pretty good for science-related articles, purely political stuff not so much.

No, it isn't.

There's a reason you're not allowed to cite Wikipedia in your school projects.

[weevil]

No, it isn't.

There's a reason you're not allowed to cite Wikipedia in your school projects.


Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation/2305

[LAGC]

No, it isn't.

There's a reason you're not allowed to cite Wikipedia in your school projects.

No, but we can certainly use many of the sources, all found at the bottom of each Wiki page. :)

Like I said, for science stuff its usually spot on, for political stuff not so much.

But when there's obvious inaccuracies, you can just revert the page back to pristine condition. That's how they keep the trolls in line.

[FunkyPertwee]

No, but we can certainly use many of the sources, all found at the bottom of each Wiki page. :)

When you get further along in school, they won't let you site sources from a wikipedia page without citing the wikipedia page as well, otherwise its considered plagiarism since you got your early ideas from the wiki page and didn't cite it. To cite a wikipedia page is to have you and your paper branded as amateur. So whether you cite wikipedia or not when using its sources, your fucked. So enjoy while you can as an underclassman.

[LAGC]

When you get further along in school, they won't let you site sources from a wikipedia page without citing the wikipedia page as well, otherwise its considered plagiarism since you got your early ideas from the wiki page and didn't cite it. To cite a wikipedia page is to have you and your paper branded as amateur. So whether you cite wikipedia or not when using its sources, your fucked. So enjoy while you can as an underclassman.

That doesn't make sense. You're always supposed to cite the original article the source came from, not second-hand sources. Plagiarism is using a source as if they were your own words without proper attribution. You seem to be suggesting that if you quote a non-Wiki source you have to double-check Wiki to make sure its not re-quoted there or else you have to source them too? Nonsense.

Stuff from EBSCOhost is sourced directly all the time, and much of it is re-quoted on various Wiki pages. It would be ridiculous to think you'd have to double-check everything on Wiki and cite it as a source too.

[stinker]

Like I said, for science stuff its usually spot on, for political stuff not so much.

Global warming as an issue is purely political.
Meet William Connelley, thoughtcop (http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/william-connelley-thoughtcop/)


But when there's obvious inaccuracies, you can just revert the page back to pristine condition. That's how they keep the trolls in line.

That is until someone like William Connelley, thoughtcop (http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/william-connelley-thoughtcop/) gets his hands on the page.

[LAGC]

Global warming as an issue is purely political.

That's only because certain powerful interests have made it political.

Be honest guys: are you so knee-jerk skeptical of global warming because you really don't want to believe the science, or because that's what many of your favorite radio/T.V. host/pundits have argued for so long? Where do you think they get their ideas from? (Not from just their dreams, that's for sure...)

To be quite honest, I think Al Gore doing his little "An Inconvenient Truth" show, while well-intentioned, did great harm to the science. He helped make it political, and because so many people hate Gore, naturally they don't want to believe anything he says, which is understandable.

But this really shouldn't be a political issue at all. What happens to the Earth affects all of us, and we have the power to change the future, its just going to be costly to do so. At least in the short-run.

But I think things will get so bad within the next 10-20 years that inaction will be impossible to fathom any more, that doesn't mean we should stop researching cleaner alternatives to our fossil-fuel economy in the meantime though.

[El Jefe]

Global warming as an issue is purely political.
Meet William Connelley, thoughtcop (http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/william-connelley-thoughtcop/)



That is until someone like William Connelley, thoughtcop (http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/william-connelley-thoughtcop/) gets his hands on the page.

Damn. And yet Leftists and their lackeys in the media tell us we should believe them.

This Connelley clown, is an obvious zealot who has little regard for facts. Only the agenda matters.

[weevil]

Global warming as an issue is purely political.
Meet William Connelley, thoughtcop (http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/william-connelley-thoughtcop/)



That is until someone like William Connelley, thoughtcop (http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/william-connelley-thoughtcop/) gets his hands on the page.


Well it would certainly explain why those who preach Global Warming would want Wiki articles to be accepted as the gospel.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

That's only because certain powerful interests have made it political.

Be honest guys: are you so knee-jerk skeptical of global warming because you really don't want to believe the science, or because that's what many of your favorite radio/T.V. host/pundits have argued for so long?

Right now it's the spurious arguments and data that you're citing.

I'm not going to agree with you and powder your bottom just because you can't find a credible source or formulate a pursuasive argument.

[El Laton Caliente]

Why yes, post a few Youtube videos, where anyone can claim to be an expert on anything, even if they are completely ignorant of the underlying science involved.

:laugh:

How about we look at the facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

QUOTE A SITE THAT IS RUN BY LEFTIES AND ALLOWS LEFTIES TO DELETE ANYTHING NOT FOLLOWING THE AGENDA...[/b][/i]

LMAO!

This is about as convincing as a "consensus" is as part of the scientific method...

What happen to the "consensus" of 30,000 scientists suing Alien Gore? (Hint: the best the gorebull warming group has had is about 1,500 and most of them were not hard science and out of the field)

[FunkyPertwee]

That doesn't make sense. You're always supposed to cite the original article the source came from, not second-hand sources. Plagiarism is using a source as if they were your own words without proper attribution. You seem to be suggesting that if you quote a non-Wiki source you have to double-check Wiki to make sure its not re-quoted there or else you have to source them too? Nonsense.

Stuff from EBSCOhost is sourced directly all the time, and much of it is re-quoted on various Wiki pages. It would be ridiculous to think you'd have to double-check everything on Wiki and cite it as a source too.

You're not following me.

If I read a wikipedia article while doing a research paper and decide to quote one of the sources used by the wikipedia page, I must cite the original source and include the wiki page in my bibliography. This is true even if I never quote the wiki page, or use any of the information it paraphrases. The reason for this is that the wiki page (or historical article) was vital to my research.

The same is true for books and historical articles. If you read a book and decide to quote the authors sources but not the author himself, you still must include the book in your bibliography.

The only real difference between doing this with a wiki page and an academic source is that if you put wikipedia pages down in your bibliography you're going to look like amateur hour and no-one will respect your work. If you get your sources from wiki pages and fail to include the wiki page in your bibliography, its plagiarism.

[LAGC]

Right now it's the spurious arguments and data that you're citing.

I'm not going to agree with you and powder your bottom just because you can't find a credible source or formulate a pursuasive argument.

Here's a good source for data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore.html

Which is one of the main reasons climate scientists know what our global temperatures SHOULD be right now, and how much they are deviating upwards from.

By looking at the evidence in the ice-core record, scientists know where we should be at this point in the climate cycle and can make informed predictions based off models of that data.

It's not just that the Earth warms and cools naturally, which I think we all agree on, the issue is that the Earth is warming more NOW than it should be, at this point in the cycle.

The only difference between now and all previous cycles on record is that we're spewing a ton of carbon-dioxide and methane into the atmosphere this time around. Of course, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but scientists have ruled out most every other conceivable possible cause. So what are we left with?

I guess what gets me is, not a single government on this planet denies that this is happening. If it were really a conspiracy, wouldn't SOMEONE cry foul? Even Russia and China and other developing nations that have the most to lose from a carbon tax, don't deny the science. Sure, they may vote against taking action for their own selfish reasons, but they don't deny that its happening.

It's pretty clear why the big fossil-fuel industry would be concerned though, since any action would directly affect their bottom-line. Which is why they are pumping so much money into "think tanks" and other propaganda mills to try to muddy the waters on this issue.

[weevil]

It's pretty clear why the big fossil-fuel industry would be concerned though, since any action would directly affect their bottom-line. Which is why they are pumping so much money into "think tanks" and other propaganda mills to try to muddy the waters on this issue.



As opposed to green industries and hucksters like Al Gore selling carbon-credits, pushing Global Warming, who only want to help us out of the goodness of their heart.

[Oswald Bastable]

Which is one of the main reasons climate scientists know what our global temperatures SHOULD be right now, and how much they are deviating upwards from.


Give me a fucking break. Climate scientists can't even tell us what our global temperature average will be on Sept. 9th 2014 with any accuracy (only speculation), and you think they're accurate 10 years, 20 years, 50 years+ from today?

They have even less data to accurately predict what our temps should be right now, because they're missing the biggest part of the equation in their zeal to make it a man made problem...solar output.

[El Laton Caliente]

That's only because certain powerful interests have made it political.

Be honest guys: are you so knee-jerk skeptical of global warming because you really don't want to believe the science, or because that's what many of your favorite radio/T.V. host/pundits have argued for so long? Where do you think they get their ideas from? (Not from just their dreams, that's for sure...)

To be quite honest, I think Al Gore doing his little "An Inconvenient Truth" show, while well-intentioned, did great harm to the science. He helped make it political, and because so many people hate Gore, naturally they don't want to believe anything he says, which is understandable.

But this really shouldn't be a political issue at all. What happens to the Earth affects all of us, and we have the power to change the future, its just going to be costly to do so. At least in the short-run.

But I think things will get so bad within the next 10-20 years that inaction will be impossible to fathom any more, that doesn't mean we should stop researching cleaner alternatives to our fossil-fuel economy in the meantime though.

Do you understand the AL Gore and the rest of the investors in carbon exchanges financed ALL of the "research" into global warming? Yes, some of it was financed through governments, but supported by the same people. The "research" was given a result and charged with finding justification for the profit motive. Al the Gore-ical has made pushing a billion off this snake oil... The European and Chicago carbon exchanges have both FAILED as the "science" behind global warming evaporated... But BELIEVE the gore-bull warming religion if you want to...

You are worse than the young world creationist "scientists" that all seem to have a doctorate in religious philosophy...

[El Laton Caliente]

Green Graveyard: 19 Taxpayer-Funded Failures
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/05/green-graveyard-19-taxpayer-funded-failures/

See how many had contributions to Obama's campaign...

[weevil]

Give me a fucking break. Climate scientists can't even tell us what our global temperature average will be on Sept. 9th 2014 with any accuracy (only speculation), and you think they're accurate 10 years, 20 years, 50 years+ from today?

They have even less data to accurately predict what our temps should be right now, because they're missing the biggest part of the equation in their zeal to make it a man made problem...solar output.



Which brings us full circle to the point of the article.

If these wise and all knowing climate scientists are never wrong and are so accurate at predicting the future that they "know" what global temperatures "SHOULD" be right now, then why were they so completely wrong about this years ice cap?


http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/09/08/aveneqe8.jpg

Thin thick or otherwise these "climate scientists" who are supposedly all knowing and can predict the future with ease said it would "vanish".


Now I may not be a "climate scientist" but it sure don't look like it vanished to me.

[El Laton Caliente]

AUH, AUH, AUH, it, it is global "climate" change... right... AUH, the warming causeed cooling and this is why you need to buy carbon credits from the AL.... mkay?

[weevil]

AUH, AUH, AUH, it, it is global "climate" change... right... AUH, the warming causeed cooling and this is why you need to buy carbon credits from the AL.... mkay?



It's the evil fossl-fuel industry!!!


They set up millions of refrigerators at the north pole and left the doors open!


:biggrina:

[LAGC]

As opposed to green industries and hucksters like Al Gore selling carbon-credits, pushing Global Warming, who only want to help us out of the goodness of their heart.

No, obviously Al Gore and others have read the tea leaves. They see the writing on the wall. So of course a few unscrupulous bastards are going to try to take advantage of the situation. That's to be expected.


The European and Chicago carbon exchanges have both FAILED as the "science" behind global warming evaporated...

Carbon exchanges were a shitty idea to begin with, and shouldn't even be on the table. But a flat carbon tax which would make alternative forms of energy more competitive and fund a shitload of research should be seriously considered if we really expect to make headway against this coming storm.


You are worse than the young world creationist "scientists" that all seem to have a doctorate in religious philosophy...

Funny, but that's what most of the "true believers" in climate change think about your position. Denying the science of climate change is analogous to those who still deny the FACT of evolution by natural selection. Doesn't matter how much evidence you present from the fossil-record, because, by God, dinosaurs walked the planet along with humankind! Jesus rode a dinosaur even! ;)


Green Graveyard: 19 Taxpayer-Funded Failures
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/05/...nded-failures/

See how many had contributions to Obama's campaign...

This is probably true, but the main reason those ventures failed is that natural gas has just become so damn cheap and plentiful, its impossible for those ventures to compete. There's no way the renewable energy sector will ever get off the ground without a carbon tax to level the playing field.


Thin thick or otherwise these "climate scientists" who are supposedly all knowing and can predict the future with ease said it would "vanish".

You're not looking at the bigger picture. One odd-ball year a trend don't make.

[El Laton Caliente]

LAGC, you have become a true believer...

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a ball of thermonuclear fire that controls our climates.

3. The earth is a rock.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?

[weevil]

You're not looking at the bigger picture. One odd-ball year a trend don't make.


Uh no I'm looking at as no one can predict the future especially when it comes to the weather.......and anybody who claims they can is a crook with his eye on your wallet.


Feel free to spend your last dime on carbon credits...I'm sure it'll save the planet from certain death at the hands of the evil fossil-fuel industry.


Or better yet spend that money to buy a clue......cuz you ain't got one.

[El Laton Caliente]

Funny, but that's what most of the "true believers" in climate change think about your position. Denying the science of climate change is analogous to those who still deny the FACT of evolution by natural selection. Doesn't matter how much evidence you present from the fossil-record, because, by God, dinosaurs walked the planet along with humankind! Jesus rode a dinosaur even!

As do the young earth creationists... once you are all in on a "belief" you have lost objectivity...

[LAGC]

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?

For one, quit trapping the heat and let it exhaust off into space like its supposed to. :)


Uh no I'm looking at as no one can predict the future especially when it comes to the weather.......and anybody who claims they can is a crook with his eye on your wallet.

There's a big difference between weather and climate. Climate affects the weather, but there are still many other variables that go into whether it will be raining or not on any given Sunday in Bumfuck, Ohio.

Scientists aren't concerned about the minutia of your daily weather forecast, although meteorologists have gotten somewhat better over the years... but the aggregate picture, the GLOBAL picture, on average, is much more predictable and follows a set pattern. At least it has every prior time in the climate cycle.

Which is why so many scientists are concerned this time around, because we are deviating from the pattern. Yes, solar activity varies, but it still always follows the same pattern. Unless you think we've done something to the sun to make it behave differently this time around??

:losing-it:

[El Laton Caliente]

This is probably true, but the main reason those ventures failed is that natural gas has just become so damn cheap and plentiful, its impossible for those ventures to compete. There's no way the renewable energy sector will ever get off the ground without a carbon tax to level the playing field.

Has nothing to do with it is the cleanest, most efficient energy source available. Output is water vapor and C02, plant heaven. What is to not like? Unless you buy into the false zero sum gain that more C02 does not grow more plants...

[LAGC]

Has nothing to do with it is the cleanest, most efficient energy source available. Output is water vapor and C02, plant heaven. What is to not like? Unless you buy into the false zero sum gain that more C02 does not grow more plants...

Everything in moderation, my friend. Everything in moderation. There's always too much of a good thing.

Eat too much candy you eventually get sick. Sunbathe too long and you eventually get burned.

The key thing is there's a "Goldilocks zone" here, and if we deviate from it too much, we will eventually get eaten by the Big Bad Wolf. ;)

[El Laton Caliente]

Which is why so many scientists are concerned this time around, because we are deviating from the pattern. Yes, solar activity varies, but it still always follows the same pattern. Unless you think we've done something to the sun to make it behave differently this time around??

False assumption warning. More, not less scientists are of the opinion that anthropogenic global warming is pure bullshit. See peer review...

[El Laton Caliente]

Everything in moderation, my friend. Everything in moderation. There's always too much of a good thing.

Eat too much candy you eventually get sick. Sunbathe too long and you eventually get burned.

The key thing is there's a "Goldilocks zone" here, and if we deviate from it too much, we will eventually get eaten by the Big Bad Wolf. ;)

C02 has been double what it is today with the effect of supporting the largest life bloom on the planet, see dinosaurs...

[LAGC]

C02 has been double what it is today with the effect of supporting the largest life bloom on the planet, see dinosaurs...

The problem is, aren't we supposed to QUADRUPLE our current atmospheric CO2 levels by 2050 if things don't change soon?

I'm with you that the planet and even life can survive incredible extremes, I'm just not sure how conducive it will be to our own survival though. Maybe if we all move underground like the Morlocks or something? ;)

[El Laton Caliente]

The problem is, aren't we supposed to QUADRUPLE our current atmospheric CO2 levels by 2050 if things don't change soon?

I'm with you that the planet and even life can survive incredible extremes, I'm just not sure how conducive it will be to our own survival though. Maybe if we all move underground like the Morlocks or something? ;)

You are assuming a plant bloom will not happen... that is a good thing, more food... feed the starving...

[weevil]

There's a big difference between weather and climate. Climate affects the weather, but there are still many other variables that go into whether it will be raining or not on any given Sunday in Bumfuck, Ohio.

Scientists aren't concerned about the minutia of your daily weather forecast, although meteorologists have gotten somewhat better over the years... but the aggregate picture, the GLOBAL picture, on average, is much more predictable and follows a set pattern. At least it has every prior time in the climate cycle.

Which is why so many scientists are concerned this time around, because we are deviating from the pattern. Yes, solar activity varies, but it still always follows the same pattern. Unless you think we've done something to the sun to make it behave differently this time around??

:losing-it:



Oh really?


You mean things like the climate getting warmer and colder, ice ages, the medieval warming that sort of thing, the mini ice age of the 1800s.


Yes indeed the climate does change and go through cycles.


And guess what.........it's been doing this for a long, long, time even before the evil fossil-fuel industry existed.


All they can do is make "predictions" about what the climate may or may not do based upon past trends.


There is no way at all that they can know what the future will bring because you cannot predict the size or severity of sunspots or solar flares in the future.

But since we're on the subject how do you explain the fact that other planets in the solar system are also warming up if Global Warming is caused by the evil fossil-fuel industry???

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/universo/cosmos57.htm


Could it be that increased solar activity is causing the all the planets to warm up including the Earth???

But wait that would mean your climate scientists blaming it on human activity are wrong???



Could it be they did indeed know it was gonna warm up due to solar activity and seen a way to make a buck off of it???



If you're convinced these predictions about global warming being manmade are cast in stone and can't possibly be wrong then you're a fool.

[El Laton Caliente]

False assumption warning. More, not less scientists are of the opinion that anthropogenic global warming is pure bullshit. See peer review...

Not addressed...

[LAGC]

False assumption warning. More, not less scientists are of the opinion that anthropogenic global warming is pure bullshit. See peer review...

Not addressed...

Is that really true though? Along with your 30,000 figure... I have no doubt you could find a substantial number of scientists in UNRELATED fields chiming in on the subject, but how much does your average physicist or botanist know about climatology? It would be like asking a low-level lab technician who works with microscopes all day to weigh in on some heavy theory in cosmology, like what happens inside black holes? Very few people are experts at everything, especially outside their their particular field of study.

At least Richard Dawkins was honest when he said that he couldn't weigh in on either side of the global warming debate, since he's just not that familiar with the science and hasn't bothered looking into it. I'll also freely admit that I don't understand all of the science behind it, but I do trust those that do for a living.

I just don't find it very likely that ALL these climatologists, from clear around the world, in every single nation, are all conspiring to make Al Gore rich. It just doesn't add up.

[weevil]

You mean all those scientists getting grants to do research on manmade Global warming???

[LAGC]

You mean all those scientists getting grants to do research on manmade Global warming???

Getting approved for scientific grants is NOT an easy endeavor. The government is very eager to deny funding far more often than they approve it, simply because there are so many hare-brained ideas out there. If there was any legit truth to climate change skepticism, believe me, the funding would be cut. In a heartbeat.

But all the research keeps pointing to the same direction... so what is there to do but keep testing and trying to prove existing models wrong?

[Oswald Bastable]

The government is very eager to deny funding far more often than they approve it, simply because there are so many hare-brained ideas out there.

Unless it supports their agenda of sucking more tax dollars from the proles...follow the money imbecile. Which groups/politicians are promoting globull warming the most extensively. Which groups/politicians have the most to gain by promoting globull warming. Which groups/politicians are slated to reap the major benefits of a tax on globull warming...???

Damn, you are denser than a neutron star...

[weevil]

Getting approved for scientific grants is NOT an easy endeavor. The government is very eager to deny funding far more often than they approve it, simply because there are so many hare-brained ideas out there. If there was any legit truth to climate change skepticism, believe me, the funding would be cut. In a heartbeat.


Unless of course you have crooked politicians approving money for research that says what they want it to say. Grant money would come fast and easy to those who played the game.

Not so much to those who said it was bullshit.



But all the research keeps pointing to the same direction... so what is there to do but keep testing and trying to prove existing models wrong?


Uh no it doesn't.

Most new research points to it all being a crock of shit and a pure hoax of the worst kind.


But you've bought into the lie hook line and sinker and refuse to admit to yourself that you've been made a fool of.

"Just an oddball year...yeah, yeah that's it just an oddball year!"



Your true and heroic scientists could never do such a dishonest thing......only Christians do evil stuff like that.

:biggrina:

[El Laton Caliente]

Is that really true though? Along with your 30,000 figure... I have no doubt you could find a substantial number of scientists in UNRELATED fields chiming in on the subject, but how much does your average physicist or botanist know about climatology? It would be like asking a low-level lab technician who works with microscopes all day to weigh in on some heavy theory in cosmology, like what happens inside black holes? Very few people are experts at everything, especially outside their their particular field of study.

At least Richard Dawkins was honest when he said that he couldn't weigh in on either side of the global warming debate, since he's just not that familiar with the science and hasn't bothered looking into it. I'll also freely admit that I don't understand all of the science behind it, but I do trust those that do for a living.

I just don't find it very likely that ALL these climatologists, from clear around the world, in every single nation, are all conspiring to make Al Gore rich. It just doesn't add up.

Ya didn't watch the videos did you, yea they are outnumbered many times to one...

BUT that still is NOT scientific method. Listen to them and you find out why so many do not support the lie...

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Well ain't this a B:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Well ain't this a B:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html He won't listen to facts, ideology trumps it. How about all those animals dying of snow and cold in northern South America?

[l921428x]

global warming.

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Neeley-Lack-of-hurricanes-helps-climate-change-4803578.php

[sevlex]

Skeptic = Denier = Heretic.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the new age religion for narcissistic atheists.

[El Jefe]

Skeptic = Denier = Heretic.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the new age religion for narcissistic atheists.

Theres a lot of truth in that statement.