Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do 97% of scientific studies agree that climate change is manmade?
1. Consipracy 22 41.51%
2. Scientists are not as smart as average Joe 5 9.43%
3. Scientists don't believe in the bible or the rapture 26 49.06%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-24-2013, 08:08 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,604,688 times
Reputation: 4784

Advertisements

The evidence is overwhelming. The majority of scientists, especially climate scientists, support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.

There are over 200 scientific organizations worldwide that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action:

In addition to the IPCC the following American scientific associations have all issued statements concluding that it is primarily man-made increases in heat-trapping gases that have induced climate change.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences


Climate Change: Consensus

Office of Planning and Research - List of Organizations

 
Old 05-24-2013, 09:14 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,904,904 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
I wouldn't call the studies seriously flawed. Every research study has limitations. But these three studies, using different methodologies, all showed the same result: very few credible climate scientists deny the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.

If you mean Namoi Oreskes, she also reviewed the literature on the scientific consensus studies and concluded that "there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
All of them are flawed. They were "designed" studies to purport a given conclusion. This isn't new, they have all been shown to be filled with questionable methods that serve a very specific conclusion. You are pushing debunked research. /shrug
 
Old 05-24-2013, 09:18 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,904,904 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
The evidence is overwhelming. The majority of scientists, especially climate scientists, support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.

There are over 200 scientific organizations worldwide that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action:

In addition to the IPCC the following American scientific associations have all issued statements concluding that it is primarily man-made increases in heat-trapping gases that have induced climate change.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences


Climate Change: Consensus

Office of Planning and Research - List of Organizations

Yes, yes... the IPCC and all of the scandal that was with it. I guess you were also absent during the fiasco with several administrations proclaiming their membership to hold a given position that led to many of them objecting and some even canceling their membership with those organizations?

Sorry, the constant need to appeal to authority doesn't work anymore. The movement is failing. /shrug

I am not going to rehash all of this with you as it has already been argued when it happened. You want to argue, go dig up the threads over the years here during the time it happened, read them, then counter the information presented in them. I have no desire to educate you on the history of this issue over the last 6-7 years. You are arguing old information.
 
Old 05-24-2013, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,038 posts, read 2,504,795 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Illuminati, Obama, Communist conspiracy, paid off?

Why isn't there as much consensus in the non scientific community, what is with the discrepancy?

Is it that non scientists are smarter than scientists?

97 percent of scientific studies agree on manmade global warming, so what now?

"At this point, the world’s climatologists are agreed….Once the freeze starts, it will be too late."

(Douglas Colligan, “Brace Yourself forAnother Ice Age,” Science Digest, February, 1973)

Still waiting........
 
Old 05-25-2013, 12:04 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,074,554 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
There are a couple of pretty serious problem with your comments here.

First, you rely on the findings of individuals during their own individual lifetimes.

Second you do not consider the reality of history.

We know that there are natural climate patterns that impact global heat content, that last for decades.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation would be a prime example. This can last for 70 years or so.
There are other climate drivers that last even longer. Solar Cycles last for 11 years (roughly) however, those cycles are a small part of larger patterns of cycles. Some last for centuries and some for millennia.

The lifetime of an individual making observations of their personal surroundings represents little more than artifacts. They cannot capture the fluctuations of natural cycles.

However, when you take individual observations from people at different points in history, you begin to cobble together a more accurate panorama of what climate is and does.

Yes, we can say that over the course of the last 30 to 40 years, there has been a general warming trend. Yes we can say that this warming has brought about some changes. For instance, where I grew up, just about everyone now has citrus trees. As a kid, it was rare, and those that did have them, spent a lot of time keeping them alive in the winter. (This is a good thing).

Is that unusual? It certainly is if you are 50 years old or younger. They didn’t have this 50 years ago. It was colder then.


But we can look back across the centuries and find very interesting things. Things like wheat being grown in Ice Land a thousand years ago… that is something that cannot be done TODAY.

We find evidence of French feudal lords writing letters complaining about wine being grown in England around YORK. That the wine from northern England was better than their French wine, and this was cutting into their profits.

You cannot grow wine, certainly not GOOD WINE in the area around York England TODAY.

What do you contribute those changes to? This happened 800 years ago. Did humans have such a dramatic impact on climate then? Or when things once again cooled, was that human caused? If we have seen warming and cooling equal to or greater than the current one ( and history says we have) why then is this warming period different? Why all the sudden does changes in nature have to mean humans have done something horrible?
Yes or no. Does releasing greenhouse gases along with Sox, Nox, and particulate matter from fossil fuel adversely effect the Earth's climate. Yes or no.
 
Old 05-25-2013, 12:23 AM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,242 posts, read 7,875,618 times
Reputation: 3497
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
"At this point, the world’s climatologists are agreed….Once the freeze starts, it will be too late."

(Douglas Colligan, “Brace Yourself forAnother Ice Age,” Science Digest, February, 1973)

Still waiting........
Except not a single peer reviewed paper on global cooling was ever published. Not a single one. Are you even bright enough to know the difference between the peer review process and pop culture magazines? It sure doesn't seem that way thus your stupid posts.
 
Old 05-25-2013, 12:43 AM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,604,688 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
All of them are flawed. They were "designed" studies to purport a given conclusion. This isn't new, they have all been shown to be filled with questionable methods that serve a very specific conclusion. You are pushing debunked research. /shrug
No such thing has been shown. There are no credible sources debunking this research.
 
Old 05-25-2013, 01:13 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,795,636 times
Reputation: 17862
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
The following research study also examined the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change:

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

The full article is here:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
How many times are you going to post this? Let's cut right to the heart of the question and we'll set aside all the other issues with this study. Define for me what "significant" is relative to climate change.
 
Old 05-25-2013, 01:14 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,795,636 times
Reputation: 17862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Problems with that as well, and has been discussed to death times over on this board. You pull out Doran/Zimmerman,,,.
If it wasn't this thread it was a recent one he already posted it, then when I went I on to cite some references from it he's asking me for a source for my information. ROFL
 
Old 05-25-2013, 01:23 AM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,604,688 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
How many times are you going to post this? Let's cut right to the heart of the question and we'll set aside all the other issues with this study. Define for me what "significant" is relative to climate change.
You mean significant climate change?

During the 20th century the earth's surface temperature rose by ~1.08 degrees F. And another 0.25 F since 2000. Although it seems small this is an extremely rapid rate of change compared to the previous 10,000 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top