16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[Saigon]

The warming fanatics haven't been able to win on science..

So the fact that EVERY major scientific organisation on earth confirming climate change is not winning?

You have to laugh, don't you?

 

[mamooth]

Five time in the 19th century it snowed on the 4th of July in Maryland.

In 1816, there was no summer...freezing cold throughout June, July and August.

Because Mount Tambora blew up.

Missouri was once under a vast sea.

Man walked from Eurasia to North America.

Climates change.

Without our help or hindrance.

Logic failure.

The fact that climate has changed without humans doing it in the past in no way prevents humans from changing climate now.

 

[Saigon]

oh for crying out loud...Everyone knows the damn climate changes...It's a natural function of earth

some don't believe that in just 150 or so years MAN has had the IMPACT on climate like you brainwashed sheep do...

And of course you see no contradiction between calling people "sheeple" while you dismiss the past 20 years of scientific research without having read it, simply because afew blogs and shockjocks tell you too.

Interesting.

 

[Saigon]

Boss -

When we leave the realm of climatology, we find the scientific community is about the same as the general public, with regard to the theory.

This is simply nonsense.

Every major scientific organisation - representing fields as diverse as biology, geology, physics, medicine and agriculture - has confirmed the role of man in climate change. That is more than60 organisations, from right around the world.

Not one single organisation dissents.

So no, Al Gore has not convinced me of anything. Experts in physics have convinced me that they know what they are doing. I suspect that if you listen to them, you'll be convinced, too.

 

[Cuyo]

The warming fanatics haven't been able to win on science.. NOW -- they are desparately doing a PR hatchet job on opinions..

Saigon and GoldiRocks need a GOOD MEATY weather disaster to keep the tribe in line..

Respectfully as I can muster - What the holy fuck are you talking about?

SCIENCE has never faultered on the issue of global warming. There is not a scientific body on the PLANET that maintains a dissenting position.

The OP is simply pointing out that the evidence observable to laymen is reaching the point that big money interests are having trouble keeping people confused on the issue.

What do you have again to put up against the worldwide scientific community? John Bolaris and Bob Lutz?

Grow up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Boss -

When we leave the realm of climatology, we find the scientific community is about the same as the general public, with regard to the theory.

This is simply nonsense.

Every major scientific organisation - representing fields as diverse as biology, geology, physics, medicine and agriculture - has confirmed the role of man in climate change. That is more than60 organisations, from right around the world.

Not one single organisation dissents.

So no, Al Gore has not convinced me of anything. Experts in physics have convinced me that they know what they are doing. I suspect that if you listen to them, you'll be convinced, too.

I love it when people say things like that. Tell me something, why should I listen to a bunch of biologists, who know next to nothing about climatology, when they tell me that man is causing the worst climate disaster in the history of the universe?

There was a time when every major scientific organization stated that darker pigments meant that a person was less intelligent, and had more sexual prowess. For some strange reason, people still think that scientific organizations making political statements proves something.

By they way, it may, or may not, be true that every major scientific organization has confirmed the role of man in climate change, but it seems that most scientists actually disagree with said organizations.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. 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.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

This is the difference between relying on organizations with agendas, and talking to people. Not that a self declared expert on everything because he read a book would understand thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The warming fanatics haven't been able to win on science.. NOW -- they are desparately doing a PR hatchet job on opinions..

Saigon and GoldiRocks need a GOOD MEATY weather disaster to keep the tribe in line..

Respectfully as I can muster - What the holy fuck are you talking about?

SCIENCE has never faultered on the issue of global warming. There is not a scientific body on the PLANET that maintains a dissenting position.

The OP is simply pointing out that the evidence observable to laymen is reaching the point that big money interests are having trouble keeping people confused on the issue.

What do you have again to put up against the worldwide scientific community? John Bolaris and Bob Lutz?

Grow up.

Science has never taken a position on it because science is no more capable of taking a position than Buddhism is. Scientists, however, have been arguing about it for years, and will continue to do so. Anyone that tells you anything different is lying to you.

 

[Saigon]

Tell me something, why should I listen to a bunch of biologists, who know next to nothing about climatology, when they tell me that man is causing the worst climate disaster in the history of the universe?

Because they are the leading authorities on BIOLOGY.

Their statements about climate change confirm the impact of climate change observed from a biological standpoint. Obviously.

These organisations have all confirmed the impact of climate change on biology and biodiversity:


American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[73]

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.[74][75] 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.[76]

American Society for Microbiology[77]

Australian Coral Reef Society[78]

Institute of Biology (UK)[79]

Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[80] and the UNFCCC.[81]

The Wildlife Society (international)[82]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tell me something, why should I listen to a bunch of biologists, who know next to nothing about climatology, when they tell me that man is causing the worst climate disaster in the history of the universe?

Because they are the leading authorities on BIOLOGY.

Their statements about climate change confirm the impact of climate change observed from a biological standpoint. Obviously.

These organisations have all confirmed the impact of climate change on biology and biodiversity:


American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[73]

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.[74][75] 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.[76]

American Society for Microbiology[77]

Australian Coral Reef Society[78]

Institute of Biology (UK)[79]

Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[80] and the UNFCCC.[81]

The Wildlife Society (international)[82]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The same groups have also tole me that they really have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the number of species that are dying every year.

Since you missed my post, let me slap you with some reality again.

Boss -

When we leave the realm of climatology, we find the scientific community is about the same as the general public, with regard to the theory.

This is simply nonsense.

Every major scientific organisation - representing fields as diverse as biology, geology, physics, medicine and agriculture - has confirmed the role of man in climate change. That is more than60 organisations, from right around the world.

Not one single organisation dissents.

So no, Al Gore has not convinced me of anything. Experts in physics have convinced me that they know what they are doing. I suspect that if you listen to them, you'll be convinced, too.

I love it when people say things like that. Tell me something, why should I listen to a bunch of biologists, who know next to nothing about climatology, when they tell me that man is causing the worst climate disaster in the history of the universe?

There was a time when every major scientific organization stated that darker pigments meant that a person was less intelligent, and had more sexual prowess. For some strange reason, people still think that scientific organizations making political statements proves something.

By they way, it may, or may not, be true that every major scientific organization has confirmed the role of man in climate change, but it seems that most scientists actually disagree with said organizations.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. 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.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

This is the difference between relying on organizations with agendas, and talking to people. Not that a self declared expert on everything because he read a book would understand thinking.

 

[Saigon]

QW -

As is so often the case, if you wish to post something relevant and on-topic, I will respond to it.

Meanwhile, biologists remain our best source of information on the biological impact of climate change, whether you like it or not. Certainly organisations representing biologists have an agenda - and it is called Biology.

Somehow I don't see how "talking to someone" is a better option than getting information on biology from the organisations that represent biologists.

For instance, this from the US Institute of Microbiology:

Global Environmental Change — Microbial Contributions, Microbial Solutions (PDF), American Society For Microbiology, May 2006 They recommended "reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of” atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change. Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend. Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change."

I think we can agree that the Institute are neither rabid pinkos nor prone to bouts of hysteria and emotion. Hence - why not listen to what they have to say?


I have to say, your posting the last week has been extraordinarily hapless, even by your standards.

 

[westwall]

The warming fanatics haven't been able to win on science..

So the fact that EVERY major scientific organisation on earth confirming climate change is not winning?

You have to laugh, don't you?

Let us all know when appeals to authority are meaningful. You might want to look up

Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

 

[westwall]

QW -

As is so often the case, if you wish to post something relevant and on-topic, I will respond to it.

Meanwhile, biologists remain our best source of information on the biological impact of climate change, whether you like it or not. Certainly organisations representing biologists have an agenda - and it is called Biology.

Somehow I don't see how "talking to someone" is a better option than getting information on biology from the organisations that represent biologists.

I have to say, your posting the last week has been extraordinarily hapless, even by your standards.

I see you're avoiding my posts like the plague. Here they are again so all can see how full of dung you are.....


Poll: Many Americans not all that concerned about climate change

Poll: Many Americans not all that concerned about climate change ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Americans Among Least Concerned About Climate Change
Americans Among Least Concerned About Climate Change


New EU Poll: Europeans No Longer Concerned About Climate Change

"Last year a paltry 5% of all Europeans rated climate change as their most pressing concern. In the new poll the percentage has gone down to 4%. Most likely climate change will soon disappear completely, despite of the barrage of alarmist propaganda produced in Brussels (and funded by European taxpayers).

Only in Malta (22%), Sweden (19%) and Germany (10%) does the number get into double digits. Even in Hedegaard’s home country Denmark, only 9% of the people rate climate change as their main concern. And in seven countries Slovakia, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, Latvia, Estonia and Greece the number is zero (0%)."



http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb79/eb79_first_en.pdf

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

The fact that every major scientific body on earth confirms climate change science is VERY significant.

Let us know when dismissing scientific opinion become meaningful.

I see you're avoiding my posts like the plague.

I have you on Ignore Mode, so very rarely see your posts. Given 90% of your posting seems to be devoted to flouncing, pouting and abuse, I feel confidant that I am not missing a great deal.

 

[Saigon]

"Last year a paltry 5% of all Europeans rated climate change as their most pressing concern.

Classic Westwall....and why did you not mention that 75% of Europeans rated climate change as one of their Top 3 concerns?

I wouldn't have listed it as my MOST pressing concern either - that went to the global recession this year - but that doesn't mean I don't believe in climate change, does it, genius?!

bw. I just looked at your link - you seem to have read a very general overview of attitudes to all kinds of things - the same organisation has conducted research specifically on this topic, which I suggest you might want to read.

Here it is: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_313_en.pdf

Let's see if you can be honest enough to report back....my bet is that you can't.

 

[Politico]

Again with the strawman. No one disputes that the climate changes.

The dispute is whether or not the activities of man are responsible for global change. We can all provide any amount of hard, observed evidence that the cliamte changes and is changing. None of us, however, can provide the first bit of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that the activities of man are responsible for global climate change.

It is idiots like you who give idiots a bad name.

That.

 

[SSDD]

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

This is the difference between relying on organizations with agendas, and talking to people. Not that a self declared expert on everything because he read a book would understand thinking.

He will ignore the study that found that most scientists (not to be confused with political heads of organizations) are not on the AGW crazy train till CO2 actually can cause warming...what I mean is that he will never acknowledge it because it is in conflict with his faith and his faith is strong. He believes the political heads of organizations who are responsible for funding and such actually represent the positions of the membership and ignores hard evidence to the contrary.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Biologists are not represented by "political heads" of anything. Obviously.

I thought the Forbes article was interesting, but I don't think anyone is going to get too excited by any article that seeks to pigion-hole people into groups called "Fatalists" or "Regulation Activisits".

If you read the article, you will note that it explains that 24% of scientists see climate change as a natural phenomenon. That is higher than I would have expected, but then the survey does include...um...engineers.

Should I point out that QW ridiculed the idea that biologists understand climate change - but now suggest engineers do?!

Do try and keep in mind that many of the 60 scientific organisations you are wailing about released statements based on a democratic vote amongst their members, btw.

 

[SSDD]

If you read the article, you will note that it explains that 24% of scientists see climate change as a natural phenomenon. That is higher than I would have expected, but then the survey does include...um...engineers.

Should I point out that QW ridiculed the idea that biologists understand climate change - but now suggest engineers do?!

Do try and keep in mind that many of the 60 scientific organisations you are wailing about released statements based on a democratic vote amongst their members, btw.

You think climate scientists are better educated and understand the laws of physics better than engineers? Is that really what you are claiming?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Please try and post with a little honesty and common sense.

Start by admitting that the 24% of those surveyed who believe climate change is a natural phenomena is NOT a majority.

You might then also admit that a great many engineers have absolutely no training in any field that would provide any useful insight climate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Boss -

Firstly, the entire scientific community does not confirm the presence of UFOs in our atmosphere.

Secondly, many things impact food prices. No one claimed otherwise. Climate change is one of those things.

Lastly, it puzzles me that you can talk about "sheeple" in the same post as dismissing the past 50 years of scientific research out of hand. You might want to consider why not a single scientific organisation agrees with your theories before you go to far criticising others.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc]NASA's Alien Anomalies caught on film - A compilation of stunning UFO footage from NASA's archives - YouTube[/ame]