The hypocracy of the AGW haox supporters is amusing (vs, programs, million)
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.
Because it's not true. Seriously... Get a clue, here. Science, even among the tiny number of climate scientists, is wildly divided over all matters about this.
Oh, and 'consensus' is not science, it's politics. Even if 99.9% agreed on something that's false, it doesn't change to true. There is an objective truth, and we absolutely DO NOT HAVE the facts to find it.
???? What does Limbaugh have to do with this? You're citing politicians for your 99.9% argument, and then accusing me of not thinking and believing Rush Limbaugh, simply because I did my scientific homework. Amazing.
Of course you can't. I deal in facts and reality.
I don't know why I am going to bother doing this because you are going to refute it with absolutely no evidence to back it up. But here is goes:
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Quote:
Scientific consensus[edit]
See also: Scientific consensus
A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[120] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[34]
US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[121]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[122]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[28]
American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[123]
Network of African Science Academies: “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.”[31]
International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[73]
Australian Coral Reef Society,[124] 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."[125]
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
Quote:
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
Quote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14
*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.
So, where is your data? From actual scientific organizations?
I believe in the Theory of Evolution
I believe in the Theory of Relativity
I believe in String Theory
I believe in the mathematics that predicts 420,000 separate universes
I believe in the mathematics that predicts 16 distinct dimensions
I believe in the 'germ theory" of disease
I DO NOT believe in "global warming".
What is the difference between the former and the latter? Global warming is "junk science" that borders on a cult.
What is the difference between you and me? I have published many papers in the actual scientific literature and understand the difference between real science and junk science. You, by pulling the "D" lever in a voting booth, are not conferred with actual degrees and an understanding of the scientific literature, despite what most libs believe.
Wow...You have been published in scientific journals? Which ones, and if it's not too much trouble please link me to one of your papers....
I seriously doubt that any published scientist would be denying that the planet is warming in face of all the evidence that confirms that it is a fact....
Great back peddling. You don't look quite as absurd by covering your tracks in that fashion.
I can see that you have educated yourself in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All of those PhDs conferred by voting "D" seem to have done you some good.
Regarding the "stored energy" in the oceans, I am sure that you have taken multiple temperature measurements ten miles down from the surface of the ocean and KNOW what the temps are at the bottom of the Marianna's Trench. Do you actually know what is constituted by 1 Joule?
PS- Don't argue science with people who actually have a background in science. It makes you look like an idiot.
I would again suggest looking at post 7 it clearly outlines the results of 10s of thousands of measurements. I would also suggest that as a science person you might actually follow scientific principles such as presenting evidence rather then just saying the second rule of thermodynamics like it was some magic answer to everything, even though as I have pointed out numerous times the earth is not an isolated system.
As to what joules are I think it is pretty clear that joules are a measure of work, energy or heat.
Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
Wow...You have been published in scientific journals? Which ones, and if it's not too much trouble please link me to one of your papers....
I seriously doubt that any published scientist would be denying that the planet is warming in face of all the evidence that confirms that it is a fact....
Hilarious-
You guys are great at cut and pasting charts, but never look into any methods to determine how the data was obtained.
Now in the "ocean temp data", the devil is in the details. If you had read the data, you would have found that "shallow measurements were made 1.8 million times, but "deep" (1,000 m) were made only 300,000 times. Thus the data is scewed toward surface measurements. Given that the vast majority of the volume of the ocean is at greater than 1,000 m, the data collected essentially only constitutes near surface data.
"Using this definition, WOD09 contains approximately 1.8 million shallow casts so that the cost of the ship time to perform these measurements is approximately $3.7 billion. In addition, WOD09 contains 0.3 million profiles deeper than 1000 m depth, so the cost in ship time to make these "deep" measurements is approximately $3.1 billion"
In short, they did not obtain accurate data due to cost, yet want us to believe thier "conslusions"!
You guys are great at cut and pasting charts, but never look into any methods to determine how the data was obtained.
Now in the "ocean temp data", the devil is in the details. If you had read the data, you would have found that "shallow measurements were made 1.8 million times, but "deep" (1,000 m) were made only 300,000 times. Thus the data is scewed toward surface measurements. Given that the vast majority of the volume of the ocean is at greater than 1,000 m, the data collected essentially only constitutes near surface data.
"Using this definition, WOD09 contains approximately 1.8 million shallow casts so that the cost of the ship time to perform these measurements is approximately $3.7 billion. In addition, WOD09 contains 0.3 million profiles deeper than 1000 m depth, so the cost in ship time to make these "deep" measurements is approximately $3.1 billion"
In short, they did not obtain accurate data due to cost, yet want us to believe thier "conslusions"!
BS data in- BS conclusions out
Is this really all you can do. Cite your alleged credentials and call evidence BS.
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.
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.
