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

[westwall]

The world temperature is currently holding steady or possibly cooling, oil is not running out, the poles are not melting (in fact quite the opposite) food is not running out, in other words the world is fine and you need to think globally and act locally. Clean up your area and the rest will follow.



Renewable Power Fail – As Usual – December 2010 « PA Pundits – International

If Al Gore Can Outgrow the Ethanol Fad, Why Can’t Conservatives?

World Climate Report » Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down

Peter Foster: Reason will prevail on energy | FP Comment | Financial Post

 

[bripat9643]

97% sounds right. The other 3% work for right wing think tanks.

The 97% are all sucking on the government tit. They get paid to produce results that justify more money for their paymasters.

 

[bripat9643]

OK, Dooodeeee..... you silly ass.

Every single Scientific Society on this planet state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every National Academy of Science, and every major University.

Come on now, show me where all these scientists are stating that AGW is real. And not some made up list from OISM, replete with the names of scientists that were dead at the time of the creation of the list.

Scientific societies are tools of the government. They regurgitate the agenda of the bureaucrats who pay them. Many of their members don't even agree with the position papers they publish.

Asking them what they think is like asking the Chief of Police what he thinks about the Mayor's position on gun control, and then calling it the opinion of all policemen.

 

[bripat9643]

I see. Science and Nature are just full of lies, correct? What fools you fellows be.

No, liberal jackasses are full of lies. Furthermore, they don't know the slightest thing about nature. Almost every claim they make about nature turns out to be wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

And Al Gore laughed himself all the way to the bank with the millions he made off the scam.

Oh yes.

He would have made more selling out to the oil companies like Bush

Selling out what? Bush had a company to sell. What does Gore have to sell other than hot gas?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Note: if you draw a line that averages temperatures from 1998 to 2010, the slope will be negative. The slope of the line depends on where it starts and stops. it's the old liberal trick of cherry picking the data.

 

[bripat9643]

And the natural cycle should include cooling cycles along with the warming cycles. But for the last 100 years we are getting only neutral cycles between the warming cycles.

NCDC data has been exposed time and time again as fraudulent, just like the HadleyCRU data. It's "homogenized."

 

[rdean]

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

Should be 94%.

6% disagree. The right wing knows that 94% of all scientists are uneducated liars, right?

6% of scientists identify as Republican | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

But..........nobody cares...........so whats the point??!!!!

This is still a POLITICS forum last I checked.................so what of the politics of AGW??

Crap and Tax legislation is officially DEAD. Even in lefty states like New Hampshire where RGGI legislation went down hard........246-104...........a complete blowout!! Other states will soon follow suit and nobody in DC is tallking about it. Even John Kerry referred to the topic as radioactive.

So really..........who the fcukk cares what the loaded science says now.............the point is moot, in fact, politically, the deniers PWN the day!!!







Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global WarmingThursday, March 24, 2011

President Obama, former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations, among others, argue that global warming is chiefly caused by human activity. A plurality of voters recognize that this view is held mostly by liberals rather than by all Americans.

In fact, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters mistakenly think most Americans agree that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. Forty-six percent (46%) recognize that the view is held primarily by liberals (To see survey question wording, click here.).

Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Rozman]

Man that is one fine looking woman....Ummmm ummmm Ummmm....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This thread definately calls for a quick check of the USMessageBoard Political forum scoreboard.......................

funny , the right bitches about leaving their kid no debt , but don't care their leaving their kids no planet .

BZZZT!!!!

You're referring to LONG-term planning (re: The Environment), when.....in this Brave New "conservative" World....SHORT-term ca$h-grab ("For the Children...") is much-more-trendy.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So let me get this right.

The Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. And that big ass fu**ing giant ball of fire in the center of our solar system may affect our temperature?

Well Jesus H Christ, let me go out and buy a NissanLeaf and hug a polar bear.

You'd probably be better-served waiting for the NissanLeaf 2.0 (aquatic-version), before you plan that trip.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So let me get this right.

The Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. And that big ass fu**ing giant ball of fire in the center of our solar system may affect our temperature?

Well Jesus H Christ, let me go out and buy a NissanLeaf and hug a polar bear.

I remember a Peanuts where Linus thought since it was getting colder and colder every day that it would always do that and summer would never return. Of course he was like 5, I don't know what the left's excuse is...

We're (pretty-much) waiting for the Teabaggers to recognize that science has evolved, since "Peanuts" was recognized as being more "user friendly" for scientific-input.​

BASICS OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE

Does Snow and Cold Weather Disprove Climate Change?

 

[kaz]

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

Ignoring that a couple decades ago the same scientists thought we were headed into...an ice age...I like the irony that you're citing a poll of people who believe in the scientific method and not opinion as the base of science...

Is that the best you can do? Repeating that old lie again? Shows that you are a really fucking dumb individual.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

Well, I remember the 70s and that we were being told we were headed into an ice age, no self serving link changes what we remember, kid.

But I like how you insult my intelligence and then completely fail to grasp the point on polling people who don't believe in polls, they believe in the scientific method. Speaking of which empirical data has your lack of intelligence finger pointing in the wrong direction.

 

[kaz]

I remember a Peanuts where Linus thought since it was getting colder and colder every day that it would always do that and summer would never return. Of course he was like 5, I don't know what the left's excuse is...

We're (pretty-much) waiting for the Teabaggers to recognize that science has evolved, since "Peanuts" was recognized as being more "user friendly" for scientific-input.​

BASICS OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE

Does Snow and Cold Weather Disprove Climate Change?

I like how you say Democrats are the science has evolved party, then your solutions to date are:

- Criticize gas usage while screaming every time the price increases people can't "afford" it which keeps prices low and usage up.

- Oppose the only viable large scale energy producer, nuclear power

- Propose wind and solar which we are no where near technically advance enough to make any major impact on our energy needs

- Claim sending money to poor countries will solve global warming, which is then rejected by a Democratic President and Democratic Senate and then blamed on the Republicans.

- Suffer from extreme arrogance that science understands and can accurately model the earth with existing science where we couldn't a few decades ago.

Right now your solution is that acknowledging global warming will solve it and you use it to justify socialism that has nothing to do with the environment.

And you claim you are the party of science? Please, you're still at the level of in alchemy.

I am still evaluating the data. I don't accept what's proven nor reject what's not disproven. It concerns me. But to the left all roads lead to socialism and you're suffering from premature evaluation...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

teabaggers bitch about the national debt but crap on schools don't care how stupid their kids are getting , don't care if their planet is livable .

Hey.....you know how the Teabagger-mentality has ALWAYS been concerned about those-people....

....gettin' all uppity.

The Teabaggers are havin' trouble-enough with the whole mixing-thing.

The LAST thing they need is for their kids falling-victim to that, there thinkin'-stuff. Their kids can learn all they need to know, from John Wayne & Charlton Heston flicks.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y]YouTube - 9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48]YouTube - 9.12 DC TEA PARTY - INTERVIEW B-ROLL[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ignoring that a couple decades ago the same scientists thought we were headed into...an ice age...I like the irony that you're citing a poll of people who believe in the scientific method and not opinion as the base of science...

Is that the best you can do? Repeating that old lie again? Shows that you are a really fucking dumb individual.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

My God man are you suggesting we do away with as many humans as possible to correct this anomaly?.....

I thought that's what the Teabaggers efforts (at eliminating health-care for as-many-minorities-as-is-possible) were all-about??

​

 

[kaz]

Hey.....you know how the Teabagger-mentality has ALWAYS been concerned about those-people....​

Right, the Democratic solution. If you can't logically debate them because your policies are illogical and don't work, demogog them . Then claim to be the party of science...​

 

[Old Rocks]

Ignoring that a couple decades ago the same scientists thought we were headed into...an ice age...I like the irony that you're citing a poll of people who believe in the scientific method and not opinion as the base of science...

Is that the best you can do? Repeating that old lie again? Shows that you are a really fucking dumb individual.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

Well, I remember the 70s and that we were being told we were headed into an ice age, no self serving link changes what we remember, kid.

But I like how you insult my intelligence and then completely fail to grasp the point on polling people who don't believe in polls, they believe in the scientific method. Speaking of which empirical data has your lack of intelligence finger pointing in the wrong direction.

First, you remember Newsweek and Time articles, not what the scientists of that time were stating. As far as your faith in the scientific method goes, you fail to convince me of that when you quote non-scientists over scientists on a scientific subject. But back to the seventies;

Newsweek, April 28, 1975 - GLOBAL COOLING! - Digg

In 1975 the National Academy of Science (NAS) applied for funds to ‘Establish a national climatic research program’.Some journalist went to town to try and convince readers this was important stuff. The NY Times 1975: Same story as Newsweek’s ‘Cooling world’. NYT says its HEATINGScroll down to where it has the subtitle ‘Effect of Heat Waste’.The NYT notes concern over CO2 levels and fears that production of energy 'heat waste' will generate so much heat as to have a major climate impact<a class="user" href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf&lt;/a&gt;The Newsweek article was written by staff writer: Peter Gwynne.Not written a climatologist. Nor is its conclusion – Global Cooling - based on a scientific paper published in a scientific journal.My guess it was a case of staff writer trying to fill a couple of pages in a quiet week for news and trying to make a dull paper requesting funding for climate research interesting. Possibly he thought he was doing the scientists a favour and helping ‘nudge’ the politicians towards supporting them. Who knows?He attempts to build a case out of very little, taking information from where he can to build a case. And with very few references to sources. And given climate is measured as trends and conditions over periods typically of 30 years some of his examples wouldn't even be considered by serious climatologist. eg one year's winter snowfall.He doesn't even have a direct quote from one of the meteorologists and scientists he refers to in general terms.He selectively quotes from the NAS report, which in fact wasn’t predicting a ‘cooling’ but rather recommending the establishment of a National climatic research program. In that context statements such as ‘A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale.’ are just making a case why funding should be considered for such a programme. Not predicting global disaster.The NAS’s reports chapter 2, was a "Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations": 1) Establish National climatic research program 2) Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man 3) Develop Climatic index monitoring program 4) Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs (GCM = Global Climate Model)5) Adoption and development of International climatic research program 6) Development of International Palaeoclimatic data networkSo the NAS report doesn't believe prediction can yet be done, and its response is to recommend more research and the development of climatic modelling. Very different from how the author misuses the NAS report to bolster his somewhat thin case.So where did the notion of cooling come from?The 1970’s were an exciting time in the study of the ice ages and the realisation that there was arose and receded in cycles.‘The most impressive analysis remained the pioneering work of Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton. They could even split the 20,000 year cycle into a close pair of cycles with lengths of 19,000 and 23,000 years - exactly what the best new astronomical calculations predicted. By the late 1970s, most scientists were convinced that orbital variations acted as a ‘pacemaker’ to set the timing of ice ages.’ <a class="user"

Yep, I do get irate that the repition of that old saw. No, the scientists were not predicting an immediate ice age in the '70's. In fact, I read the NAS paper in the same year it was published. Now if a blue collar worker, a millwright, manages to do that, where have you been?