97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking about

[theHawk]

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.

And 100% of IT techs like myself say he is full of shit with his claims of him inventing the internet.

 

[edthecynic]

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.

And 100% of IT techs like myself say he is full of shit with his claims of him inventing the internet.

Of course he never claimed he "invented the internet" but that will never stop an America-hating CON$ervoFascist from lying about it.

 

[Oddball]

Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???

The data shows the Troposphere is WARMING in spite of all attempts by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH to cook the data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.

Everything else in the bumpped post is as accurate as the atmosphere claim.

UAH and RSS are atmospheric measurements of the Troposphere in the chart below.

How many times does that count the reporting stations in Russia & China which don't even exist?

 

[Jarhead]

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.

See how these "polls" work?

As you stated at the beginning...

"Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident......"

Truth is, the commercial said:

"4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum"

Well.....DUH??????????

Then it makes you ownder...who was that 1 out of 5 dentists that did not reccommend sugarless gum.

Yet you saw it as "4 out of 5 recommend trident"...but it did not say that.

So the same thing holds true here. Exactly how did they come up with the 100 "scientitsts" Cross section of exactly who?

DO not believe everything you hear and read. Likely, you are being duped.

True elbow grease personal research is required.

 

[edthecynic]

Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???

The data shows the Troposphere is WARMING in spite of all attempts by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH to cook the data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.

Everything else in the bumpped post is as accurate as the atmosphere claim.

UAH and RSS are atmospheric measurements of the Troposphere in the chart below.

How many times does that count the reporting stations in Russia & China which don't even exist?

None. The satellites are in the atmosphere, not Russia and China. But it is not surprising you wouldn't know that!!!

 

[Oddball]

What were the satellite measurements form the 1930s?

BTW, I notice that the heading is SURFACE and satellite readings, so the question still stands as relevant.

 

[edthecynic]

What were the satellite measurements form the 1930s?

BTW, I notice that the heading is SURFACE and satellite readings, so the question still stands as relevant.

And the blue line of surface measurements is right in between the two satellite measurements, so it seems to be quite accurate according to the satellite data. So obviously your imagined Russian and Chinese distortions are as insignificant as a denier's denial.

 

[Oddball]

Right...How many of the measurements in that composite came from the reporting stations which don't exist?

 

[edthecynic]

Right...How many of the measurements in that composite came from the reporting stations which don't exist?

Again, obviously not enough, if any, to make the data less accurate than the satellites!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who in the hell has yet to figure out that Al Gore and his mignons are crackpots? Geeze Louise....

 

[daveman]

How many times does that count the reporting stations in Russia & China which don't even exist?

Or the single station representing all of Canada above the Arctic Circle?

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

--

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.

The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.

“NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”

The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York.

It's easy to win when you stack the deck.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The monitoring station placed at the exhaust port of the Antarctic research station reports massive warming.

 

[daveman]

The monitoring station placed at the exhaust port of the Antarctic research station reports massive warming.

Socialism now! Or we're all dooooooomed!

 

[edthecynic]

The monitoring station placed at the exhaust port of the Antarctic research station reports massive warming.

Not when using ANOMALIES!!!!!!!!!

All the exhaust port will do is create a warmer 30 year AVERAGE that any change in temperature is measured against at that particular station. That's why real scientists use anomalies and deniers don't!

 

[FA_Q2]

Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???

The data shows the Troposphere is WARMING in spite of all attempts by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH to cook the data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.

Everything else in the bumpped post is as accurate as the atmosphere claim.

UAH and RSS are atmospheric measurements of the Troposphere in the chart below.

Way to avoid addressing the topic at all and just push the same rhetoric. I will wait for you o actually address the points brought up....

 

[rightwinger]

Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???

The data shows the Troposphere is WARMING in spite of all attempts by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH to cook the data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.

Everything else in the bumpped post is as accurate as the atmosphere claim.

UAH and RSS are atmospheric measurements of the Troposphere in the chart below.

Way to avoid addressing the topic at all and just push the same rhetoric. I will wait for you o actually address the points brought up....

Translation....don't confuse me with facts

 

[edthecynic]

Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???

The data shows the Troposphere is WARMING in spite of all attempts by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH to cook the data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.

Everything else in the bumpped post is as accurate as the atmosphere claim.

UAH and RSS are atmospheric measurements of the Troposphere in the chart below.

Way to avoid addressing the topic at all and just push the same rhetoric. I will wait for you o actually address the points brought up....

How is exposing the falseness of your claim that the atmosphere isn't warming with data that shows the Troposphere is, in fact, warming avoiding the topic????

 

[FA_Q2]

I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:

I have some general problems with GW theory. Everyone here keeps throwing up numbers and temperatures and forgets to realize that they are skirting the larger issue. Over all the information that I have been able to look up covering GW, I have to say that I believe the earth IS warming. That seems quite verifiable through the evidence despite the personal attacks and some cooked data. The thing is that is where everyone rests the debate at and yet that is only HALF of the theory. There IS a general consensus that the earth is warming, there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus on the actual cause and effect of that warming.

I would not say that. There is a general consensus that human activities play a role in it - thus far majority of the scientists in the effected disciplines agree. What they don't agree on is how much of an affect or whether it's reversable.



A warmer earth is not necessarily better becuase the effects are not that simple.

For example - changes in ocean temperatures or an influx of fresh water from melting sea ice, can cause changes in currents that moderate climate in many parts of the world. Britain is at the same latitude as the southern portion of Alaska, but it's climate is far milder due to the effects of the Gulf Stream.

Other changes could include more violent weather patterns, flooding, hurricanes. In addition while a warmer climate could produce more lush growth, it could also produce changes in the spread of diseases (and vectors) and pests. The tropical areas have some of the worst diseases and parasites. On the positive side - the warming of cold areas (parts of Russia) could increase agricultural potential, but at the cost of ways of life in other parts of the world.

The problem is - it's not definitive, and it really can't be due to the scope of the problem, the global issues, politics and difficulties in predicting.

That was the point that I was making. There has been little study as to the REAL effects that would occur in a warmer setting and without that study the 'crisis' does not exist. As you pointed out there isn't even a consensus whether or not we can even reverse the trend let alone a culprit. You did mention that many believe that man has SOME involvement but how much is KEY and also if our involvement is even related to carbon emissions at all. I understand that warming could cause adverse effects and did not mean to state that it would be all positive but the other side of the coin DOES unequivocally state that it will be all negative without any real science behind it. I cannot count the number of times I have heard the 'everything will become like the Sahara' scare tactics that come from the GWers. The fact remained that without some understanding of the effects of global warming I cannot get behind the MASSIVE changes that many GWers are demanding that we undergo.

The sad part about all this is that the grater debate is totally missed with those not being GW's written off because people are so stuck in their conclusions and GW's written off as alarmists for the same. If there is a real threat I damn well want to know it. From what I have seen in the data the only provable threat is the rise in PH levels in the ocean that could cause REAL damage. However, most estimates put that off for 75 years, hardly an emergency and there is still a lack of proof that carbon is the problem. We need REAL science and what we are getting is political infighting.

Bumpdiggity for some answers.

I think there is a lot of real science out there, but the politics are shrouding it.

Good post by the way - I missed it where it originally was

The politicizing or the issue has certainly clouded the grater questions. The money alone involved with that effect can certainly effect the outcome of the experiments and all the controversy makes one quite suspicious. It is particularly true with inane numbers like 97% of anything. I would like to see unfettered science here but that is unlikely for ANYTHING. I can agree the earth is getting warmer but to the rest, I need some evidence and the political infighting is concentrating the issue on the temps without regard to the rest. I am sure the information is out there, it has simply been buried under the other crap.

It was first posted in the 'death of real science' thread that PC started. I was not getting traction there more than likely from the title as it is negative at the start so I posted here in search of more level headed GW supporters. Unfortunately, even here that has been hard to find.

 

[FA_Q2]

How is exposing the falseness of your claim that the atmosphere isn't warming with data that shows the Troposphere is, in fact, warming avoiding the topic????

All the data I have seen represents the real increases in the ocean. If that is incorrect then I can acknowledge that point. I have no problem with that. The problem I have is the fact you IGNORED the entire post that single sentence. Whether or not the atmosphere has risen .4 C in the last 35 years is moot to the rest of the post.

 

[rightwinger]

How is exposing the falseness of your claim that the atmosphere isn't warming with data that shows the Troposphere is, in fact, warming avoiding the topic????

All the data I have seen represents the real increases in the ocean. If that is incorrect then I can acknowledge that point. I have no problem with that. The problem I have is the fact you IGNORED the entire post that single sentence. Whether or not the atmosphere has risen .4 C in the last 35 years is moot to the rest of the post.

No its not.

Especially since so many posters are refuting the fact that there is warming. Just like 97% of the scientists say it is