97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[Red Dawn]

That's odd.

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers. Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.

Well, I'll admit that I think the IPCC as well as the environmental sciences in general are dominated by people with what I call a "Gaian" bias. But I would've thought people on your side of the debate would consider it a credible source.

So your contention is that every single recognized national and international science organization on the planet is engaged in a massive conspiracy to try to make you flat earthers look bad?

Besides, "scientifically literate" people shouldn't need reference to others to see concerns about what's going on with the climate change thing. These people are not only implying that they've shown cause and effect. They're claiming that they understand the cause and effect relationship enough to say that if we do or don't do X, Y or Z will happen. They're also, in a separate effort, claiming to know that raising the Earth's temperature to a level that will still be below what it's believed to have been for most of the history of life on this planet will threaten our species.

Now I know you're not telling the truth. You can't be an armchair expert in climate science, why would you suggest you're capable of expert interpretation of the data?. Do you have a PhD in science?

I know when you have medical problems, you go to qualified and expert doctors. You don't try to "research" it yourself and find a cure for yourself.

Why is climate science the one, solitary area in your life where you laugh off the experts? People who have spent years training and studying to be experts in the field.

Honestly, you and I know the answer. Because many Sean Hannity supporters are invested in a partisan way in never admitting that they spent 20 years denying that global warming was even happening at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's odd.

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers. Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.

It isn't valid just because it is from the government.

And who are these flat earthers you are talking about? I think you are just throwing that in to deride them.

The National Academy of Science isn't "the government."

It's america's, and probably the world's, premeir body of distinguished scientists who are either privately employed or who work in universities, and they work pro bono as an advisory panel on issues of national importance.

The national academy of sciences says human impacts on climate are a near certainty.

Fisty the Badger and some "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon is about a good a source as you flat earthers have been able to contribute to the thread. Pathetic.

The Royal Society, Britain's equivelant of our National Academy of Sciences, is the oldest National Academy of Science in the world, and it is also in total agreement on AGW

Climate change controversies: a simple guide



The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.

Misleading argument 1 : The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans.
Misleading argument 2 : Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming.
Misleading argument 3 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round.
Misleading argument 4 : Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming.
Misleading argument 5 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions.
Misleading argument 6 : It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun.
Misleading argument 7 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays.
Misleading argument 8 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.


This document was compiled with the help of the Royal Society Climate Change Advisory Group and other leading experts.

April 2007
Climate change controversies: a simple guide



The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.

Misleading argument 1 : The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans.
Misleading argument 2 : Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming.
Misleading argument 3 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round.
Misleading argument 4 : Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming.
Misleading argument 5 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions.
Misleading argument 6 : It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun.
Misleading argument 7 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays.
Misleading argument 8 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.


This document was compiled with the help of the Royal Society Climate Change Advisory Group and other leading experts.

April 2007
Climate change controversies: a simple guide



The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.

Misleading argument 1 : The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans.
Misleading argument 2 : Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming.
Misleading argument 3 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round.
Misleading argument 4 : Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming.
Misleading argument 5 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions.
Misleading argument 6 : It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun.
Misleading argument 7 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays.
Misleading argument 8 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.


This document was compiled with the help of the Royal Society Climate Change Advisory Group and other leading experts.

April 2007

Climate change controversies: a simple guide

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Scientifically literate as in backing positions with evidence and reputable scientific sources.

"Reputable" is the term that allows for social ramifications to interfere with accurate, valid, reliable, and freely and harshly scrutinized data to occur.

 

[Red Dawn]

Scientifically literate as in backing positions with evidence and reputable scientific sources.

"Reputable" is the term that allows for social ramifications to interfere with accurate, valid, reliable, and freely and harshly scrutinized data to occur.

Joint Science Academies Statement, 2007

"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

the United States.
Brazil,
Canada,
China,
France,
Germany,
Italy,
India,
Japan,
Mexico,
Russia,
South Africa,
and the United Kingdom,




You know better than them, right FistyTheBadger?

What's your PhD in?

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Scientifically literate as in backing positions with evidence and reputable scientific sources.

"Reputable" is the term that allows for social ramifications to interfere with accurate, valid, reliable, and freely and harshly scrutinized data to occur.

Joint Science Academies Statement, 2007

"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

the United States.
Brazil,
Canada,
China,
France,
Germany,
Italy,
India,
Japan,
Mexico,
Russia,
South Africa,
and the United Kingdom,




You know better than them, right FistyTheBadger?

What's your PhD in?

It depends on the constitution and merit of our arguments, not on their popularity or relative prestige.

 

[jreeves]

Scientifically literate as in backing positions with evidence and reputable scientific sources.

"Reputable" is the term that allows for social ramifications to interfere with accurate, valid, reliable, and freely and harshly scrutinized data to occur.

Joint Science Academies Statement, 2007

"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

the United States.
Brazil,
Canada,
China,
France,
Germany,
Italy,
India,
Japan,
Mexico,
Russia,
South Africa,
and the United Kingdom,



You know better than them, right FistyTheBadger?

What's your PhD in?

US temps last year were at the lowest level since 2000, what gives?
I've already posted 650 scientist who say global warming is a myth or at the very least greatly exageratted....

 

[jreeves]

Erica Hupp/Dwayne Brown
Headquarters, Washington
(202) 358-1237/1726

Alan Buis
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(818) 354-0474

March 2, 2006 RELEASE : 06-085 NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss Scientists were able to conduct the first-ever gravity survey of the entire Antarctic ice sheet using data from the joint NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). This comprehensive study found the ice sheet's mass has decreased significantly from 2002 to 2005.

Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr, both from the University of Colorado, Boulder, conducted the study. They demonstrated for the first time that Antarctica's ice sheet lost a significant amount of mass since the launch of GRACE in 2002. The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters (0.05 inches) during the survey period; about 13 percent of the overall observed sea level rise for the same period. The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005.

That is about how much water the United States consumes in three months (a cubic kilometer is one trillion liters; approximately 264 billion gallons of water). This represents a change of about 0.4 millimeters (.016 inches) per year to global sea level rise. Most of the mass loss came from the West Antarctic ice sheet.

"Antarctica is Earth's largest reservoir of fresh water," Velicogna said. "The GRACE mission is unique in its ability to measure mass changes directly for entire ice sheets and can determine how Earth's mass distribution changes over time. Because ice sheets are a large source of uncertainties in projections of sea level change, this represents a very important step toward more accurate prediction, and has important societal and economic impacts. As more GRACE data become available, it will become feasible to search for longer-term changes in the rate of Antarctic mass loss," she said.

Measuring variations in Antarctica's ice sheet mass is difficult because of its size and complexity. GRACE is able to overcome these issues, surveying the entire ice sheet, and tracking the balance between mass changes in the interior and coastal areas.
NASA - NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss

Meteorology News » Features » Global Sea Ice on the Rebound?

Jan 5th, 2009
While much of the northern hemisphere sea ice melting has been relatively well-handled by global climate models, the antarctic ice expansion has been under-resolved by the models. Such disparities raise several questions concerning the reliability of such computer models of the climate. Such disparity would not have been significant in the early days of computer climate modelling, as such models were only seen as one indication of potential trends. Today, however, as climate change is bringing about legislative and regulatory action, the accuracy and reliability of model output is increasingly important. While the 3o-year spans examined by the satellite data of both the northern and southern hemisphere is insightful in its detail and short-term trend indications, it is worth noting what a short span of time these data represent in the context of geologic time.

 

[Red Dawn]

JR Reeves:

From your article:

While some may see this as evidence in direct opposition to global warming trends, NASA-funded research from 2005 indicates that expanding Antarctic ice may actually be proof positive of such warming (Warmer air may cause increased antarctic sea ice cover). “Most people have heard of climate change and how rising air temperatures are melting glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic,” said Dylan C. Powell, lead author of the paper and a doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. “However, findings from our simulations suggest a counterintuitive phenomenon. Some of the melt in the Arctic may be balanced by increases in sea ice volume in the Antarctic.”

Ooops.

Expanding sea ice is a consequence of the melting of land ice, and is consistent with predictions of global warming. Makes sense to me. As land ice melts and chucks of it slide into the ocean, it increases sea ice.

OOPS.

Here's the deal dude. First, you should read your articles before posting them.

Second, nobody is really that concerned about sea ice. Other than its albedo properties. Melting land ice is what is of grave concern. Because melting land ice is what increases sea level. Melting ambient sea ice doesn't increase sea level.

And guess what? The last decade has been the warmest in recorded history, and land ice contines to melt at a rapid pace.

 

[Meister]

Geeze, old rocks, it's too late for that. Lived in Ca. for 40 years. Seen it all, especially Ca. going to the damn spend everything, and more democrats. They're giving out IOU's for tax refunds this year. Going to be 42 billion dollars into the red until Obama bails them out with your tax dollars. I had to move to the great state Idaho to fine some sanity. I do love to fish for Ore. Salmon, though. Maybe we will meet some day and have a cup of jo. See how nice I am now that I know your from the "progressive" state of Ore? PS might have pinched an arrow point or two from Christmas Valley.

 

[Andrew2382]

Gorey Truths by Iain Murray on National Review Online

 

[Red Dawn]

Gorey Truths by Iain Murray on National Review Online

And yet again, the flat earthers provide us with an epic fail to demonstrate any real science, or credible links to recognized scientific organizations.

Thus far we've been provided with an opinon article from some dude at National Review, a rightwing website no one's ever heard of called "heartland.org", a link to a rightwing senator's website, and a link to some crackpot "Institute" which is located on a rural farm in Oregon and which promotes homeschooling as an alternative to "socialist" public schools.

And the link about "increasing" sea ice it turns out, actually supported the contentions of the scientifically literate on the thread, and support the statements of the National Academy of Science an every single other world scientific body who's weighed in on this. Which is that "increasing sea ice" is a predicted consequence and supports global warming. Because as land ice melts and flows into the ocean, and chunks of land ice slough off into the water, sea ice will naturall increase. Makes total sense.

There's no land at the north pole, so please flat earthers, don't try to draw analogies of north pole ice, to land ice in greenland and antarctica.

 

[Andrew2382]

http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf


Just because you don't know who the heartland institute is doesn't mean they are meaningless...they speak to the UN every year on their finding and research

Why don't you actually try reading their report..that you know uses actually scientific fact and data

 

[Red Dawn]

http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf


Just because you don't know who the heartland institute is doesn't mean they are meaningless...they speak to the UN every year on their finding and research

Why don't you actually try reading their report..that you know uses actually scientific fact and data

I'm going to trust the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, over "heartland.org"

I went to "heartland.org"'s website. They have one scientist on their staff. And he's a hydrogeologist, with zero expertise in climate science. He works on water supply projects, presumably dams, irrigation, and water wells. He has no peer reviewed publications, no formal training, and no expertise in climate science.

You've gotta be kidding me.

Do you do to a dentist, instead of a dermatologist, for a skin condition?

No?

I wonder why in ALL other areas of science you rely on experts?

 

[Chris]

http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf


Just because you don't know who the heartland institute is doesn't mean they are meaningless...they speak to the UN every year on their finding and research

Why don't you actually try reading their report..that you know uses actually scientific fact and data

I'm going to trust the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, over "heartland.org"

I went to "heartland.org"'s website. They have one scientist on their staff. And he's a hydrogeologist, with zero expertise in climate science. He works on water supply projects, presumably dams, irrigation, and water wells. He has no peer reviewed publications, no formal training, and no expertise in climate science.

You've gotta be kidding me.

Do you do to a dentist, instead of a dermatologist, for a skin condition?

No?

I wonder why in ALL other areas of science you rely on experts?

Because some people prefer the right wing echo chamber to genuine scientific research.

 

[Andrew2382]

its ok...god forbid you actually read shit with scientific data thaty proves you are wrong..you just expect people to only read your shit that you believe and you won't open your pea seized brain to something different.

Just some contributors to the report

Frano Battaglia- Professor of chemical physics and Enviromental Chemistry

Bob Carter- Paleoclimatologist and professor

Richard Courtney- Engineer for fuel use and climate consequence

Joseph D'Aleo- Meteorolgist elected councilor of AMS, first director of meteorolofy for the Weather Channel

Fred Goldberg- PHD Polar expert, organizer of 2006 Stockholm Climate Conference

Vincent Gray- PHD (Chemistry) publisger of New Zealand Climate Newsletter

Klauss Heiss- PHD Economist

Craid Idso- PHD Meteorology

Madhav Khandekar-- PHD Meteorologist, formelly with Enviorment Canada, Expert Reviewer for the IPCC 2007

Fred Singer- Atmorspheric Physicist and former director of US Weather Satellite Service

Anton Uriarte- Professor of Climatology PHD


Yeah, you're right no scientists...its ok ignore the report and dont read it cause it could prove you wrong

 

[Chris]

its ok...god forbid you actually read shit with scientific data thaty proves you are wrong..you just expect people to only read your shit that you believe and you won't open your pea seized brain to something different.

Just some contributors to the report

Frano Battaglia- Professor of chemical physics and Enviromental Chemistry

Bob Carter- Paleoclimatologist and professor

Richard Courtney- Engineer for fuel use and climate consequence

Joseph D'Aleo- Meteorolgist elected councilor of AMS, first director of meteorolofy for the Weather Channel

Fred Goldberg- PHD Polar expert, organizer of 2006 Stockholm Climate Conference

Vincent Gray- PHD (Chemistry) publisger of New Zealand Climate Newsletter

Klauss Heiss- PHD Economist

Craid Idso- PHD Meteorology

Madhav Khandekar-- PHD Meteorologist, formelly with Enviorment Canada, Expert Reviewer for the IPCC 2007

Fred Singer- Atmorspheric Physicist and former director of US Weather Satellite Service

Anton Uriarte- Professor of Climatology PHD


Yeah, you're right no scientists...its ok ignore the report and dont read it cause it could prove you wrong

Fred Goldberg? Polar expert?

Fred Goldberg
Biographical Information
Fred Goldberg was born 26th of August 1942 in Oslo, Norway.
1963 Graduated from high school in Stockholm, Sweden
1963-1064 Military' service in the Royal Swedish Navy as radio operator
1964-1969 Studied mechanical engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm Graduated with a diploma project in welding technology "The source of increased carbon in gas cut steel surfaces and its effect on construction steels"

Fred Goldberg, Biographical Information

 

[Andrew2382]

Funny how you stopped your cut and paste

2004 started to get interested in the climate debate and greenhouse effect.
2005 was asked by the President of the Royal Institute of Technology to be Secretary General and organize an international climate seminar to scrutinize the latest research in the climate area. The seminar took place on the 11 -12th of September 2006. During the last two years FG has studied the climate issues and built up a network with leading climate scientists around the world and written a series of magazine articles.
Fred Goldberg has all of his life been interested in polar history research and therefore traveled extensively in the polar regions, North and South. He has made many nature films shown on national TV and made historical documentary films

 

[Chris]

Fred Singer?

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]

[edit]Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.

S. Fred Singer - SourceWatch

 

[Chris]

Funny how you stopped your cut and paste

2004 started to get interested in the climate debate and greenhouse effect.
2005 was asked by the President of the Royal Institute of Technology to be Secretary General and organize an international climate seminar to scrutinize the latest research in the climate area. The seminar took place on the 11 -12th of September 2006. During the last two years FG has studied the climate issues and built up a network with leading climate scientists around the world and written a series of magazine articles.
Fred Goldberg has all of his life been interested in polar history research and therefore traveled extensively in the polar regions, North and South. He has made many nature films shown on national TV and made historical documentary films

He has a degree in welding.

 

[Andrew2382]

Siegfried Frederick Singer is an American atmospheric physicist. Singer is Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia,[1] specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues. Singer received a B.E.E from Ohio State University in 1943; an A.M. in physics from Princeton in 1944; and a Ph. D in physics from Princeton in 1948. Singer has received an honorary Doctorate of Science from Ohio State University in 1970.[2]


I guess he isn't educated enough for you


Do you realize how many IPCC scientists are nothing more then liberal lapdogs