An example of how much we don't know regarding this Planet...

[TakeAStepBack]

ClosedCaption's Proof: 1
Takealeap's Proof: Zilch

I provided the proof in the peer reviewed scientifically vetted and esteemed Science and Education Journal publication by Legate et al.

You're just too fuckin' dumb to know whats even going on here. Your proof is junk and has been exposed as such.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

False. The correct consensus on AGW is .3%

cite?

Climate Consensus and ?Misinformation?: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Online First - Springer

Science & Education
August 2013 Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley


Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

And continuing to avoid providing evidence to your assertions does not magically change it to truth

You mean like you've been doing in this thread? Yes. Yes. Exactly liek that. You've continuously asserted that there is a sceintific consensus on AGW and hve not provided a single, solitary piece of evidence to back it up.

You're, like other lazy LOLberal morons, blowing smoke up our ass. There is no consensus from scientists on the existence of AGW, or those who make predictions. .3% is all you have.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

Takealongwalk says: But but ...wait, they're wrong because

Scientific Societies

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)

Takeashitinhishand says: Wait but conce....uh...everyone is wrong 'cept me

National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices

"Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010

Takeadump says: FUCK YOU STUPID THEY"RE WRONG AND I"M RIGHT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT!!! FUCK OFFF!!!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

“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”

“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.”

IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.

Come one Take! Keep posting that one link from that one guy!

LOL

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That one guy? You mean four of the leading minds in climatology?

 

[ClosedCaption]

That one guy? You mean four of the leading minds in climatology?

I see your 4 guys and raise you 18 societies

Scientific Societies

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

So, bnothing scientific, just rhetoric and hyperbole? How quaint.

Takealongwalk says: But but ...wait, they're wrong because

Scientific Societies

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)

Holy cow! 18 scientific "associations"! Yet, when it comes to whether or not AGW is manmade and dangerous, there is no consensus in peer reviewed papers at all. none. Amazing!

Takeashitinhishand says: Wait but conce....uh...everyone is wrong 'cept me

National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices

"Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010

The nonexistent recent warming! Woohoo!

Takeadump says: FUCK YOU STUPID THEY"RE WRONG AND I"M RIGHT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT!!! FUCK OFFF!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Seems the Union of Concerned Scientists are so concerned they haven't updated their website in over 2 years.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And in the instance of Climate change, they havent' done so in over 4 years.....

 

[ClosedCaption]

Poor Take thinks that updating your site is an indication of how correct science is. When you have nothing uses website updates as proof of something...anything

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a public policy advocacy group, not a scientific outfit. You fuckin' wanker.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Union of Concerned Scientists Background, Funding, Controversies

Blackeye
By any real scientific yardstick, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a lousy track record. Their predictions are often laughably, and sometimes tragically, wrong. A few examples:




•In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of “global warming” and advocated U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists, and so UCS declared that “the scientific community has reached a consensus.” But when a counter-petition that questioned this so-called “consensus” was signed by more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a “deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation.”

•UCS invested significant resources in “a multiyear effort to protect Bacillus thuringiensis, a valuable natural pesticide, by bringing high visibility to a preliminary report on the toxic effect of transgenic [biotech] corn pollen on the Monarch Butterfly.” Unfortunately for them, both the USDA and the EPA have concluded that Bt corn is only a threat to the crop-devastating insects it’s supposed to kill.

•Based, we suppose, on some “science” or other, UCS’s Margaret Mellon predicted in 1999 that American farmers would reduce their planting of genetically enhanced seeds in the year 2000, saying it “probably represents a turning point.” What happened? Just the reverse. Planting of biotech crops has increased in 2000, 2001 and 2002 — and shows no sign of slowing down.

•In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run out of fossil fuels. “It is now abundantly clear,” the group wrote, “that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages.” Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing.

•To improve fuel efficiency, UCS argues for lighter tires on SUVs. But lighter tires are blamed — even by Ralph’s Nader’s Public Citizen — for tread separation. 148 deaths and more than 500 injuries were attributed to tread separation in Firestone tires alone.


UCS apparently hasn’t learned from its many, many mistakes. But if at first you don’t succeed, scare, scare again.

Motivation
The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT — the original “union” — sponsored a one-day work stoppage of scientific research. A conference that coincided with the strike included appearances from such notables as Noam Chomsky (who is now recognized as a leader of the 21st Century “hate-America left” Eric Mann, who led the 1960s terrorist Weather Underground; and Jonathan Kabat, who argued: “We want capitalism to come to an end.”

Later that year, when the founding document of the Union of Concerned Scientists was formalized, the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union was featured even more prominently than environmental issues. Three of the five propositions in the founding document concern political questions of the Cold War — a topic about which even the brightest physicists and biologists can claim no particular expertise.

UCS continues to involve itself in issues where scientific credentials carry little weight. For example, the group opposes urban sprawl, disputes a war in Iraq, and supports abortion. While these positions may be perfectly legitimate in themselves, they are hardly the product of “rigorous scientific analysis.”

 

[ClosedCaption]

sad

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, you are sad. And you've thoroughly had your ass handed to you on this topic. There is no consensus on AGW. None. The very people that set out to prove theere was one, ended up proving there wasn't one.



That's another wonderful thing about LOLberal morons. If you just let them continue to talk, they simply hang themselves by their own rope.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.

Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with longunderstood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

The American Geophysical Union has more members involved in the study of climate and global warming than any other scientific society on earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

USGS: Science Topics: climate change

Results 1 - 10 of 69 listed by similarity [list alphabetically]
USGS Global Change Science [More info]
Broad overview of USGS research and monitoring designed to understand current changes in the context of prehistoric and recent earth processes, distinguishing between natural and human-influenced changes, and recognizing ecological and physical responses
Climate Change and Wildlife Health: Direct and Indirect Effects [More info]
Addresses geographic range and distribution of wildlife diseases, plant and animal phenology, wildlife host-pathogen interactions, and disease patterns in wildlife.
Climate change in mountain ecosystems [More info]
Overview of interdisciplinary research studies in Glacier National Park to understand how this mountain wilderness responds to present climatic variability and other external stressors, such as air pollution, and links to detailed reports.
Biological resource status and trends: Climate change [More info]
Information concerning status and trends of biological resources, focusing on climate change
Effects of climate change and land use on water resources in the Upper Colorado River Basin [More info]
Information from climate model forecasts, projections of future flows, paleoclimatic indicators, timing of snowmelt, airborne dust, and the effects on vegetation of troublesome pest species indicate the nature and severity of problems looming.
Forecasting the effects of land-use and climate change on wildlife communities and habitats in the lower Mississippi Valley [More info]
Describes the analytical process by which spatial scientific information contributes to forecasts and models in support of regional and local decision-making.
National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center [More info]
Coordinates our efforts to address challenges resulting from climate change and to empower natural resource managers with rigorous scientific information and effective tools for decision-making.
Prehistoric packrats piled up clues to climate change [More info]
Hoarding behavior preserved prehistoric materials we can use as clues to ancient climate and ecosystem changes.
Quantifying effects of climate change on the snowmelt-dominated groundwater resources of northern New England [More info]
Planned analysis of the sensitivity of groundwater levels to changes in air temperature and precipitation. Changes in groundwater recharge and discharge also will be correlated with other hydrologic indicators.
Regional climate change--Science in the Southeast [More info]
Research projects intended to create regional and national data that conform to conditions predicted by general circulation models, so that land and wildlife managers can understand the likely consequences of climatic changes in their areas of study.

United States Geological Survey, probably the most respected geological study group in the world.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming

The Geological Society of America's statement on global warming. Now I could go on with the statements from various socieites representing biology, chemisty and other scientific disciplines. But they will all say the same thing. AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

 

[westwall]

Don't forget to mention the Time cover was based on no science and wasn't peer reviewed. Also don't fail to mention Global Warming and the science has been peer reviewed and scientist agree.

If you mentioned those two things you would shoot all types of holes in the OP.

OP doesn't understand sciencey stuff so he laughs to cover his ignorance

That's true. What's sad is the peer review of climate science is so poor (or maybe it's that the scientists peddling this crap are so bad?) that whenever they post a paper for the world to see it is invariably destroyed within a few days, sometimes mere hours.

Not a record to engender confidence.

Parts of it might be wrong but the whole thing has never been disproven.

For example: If you said birds feed their young every 2 hours and its actually every 5. I would say "Well you were off PROVING that your entire study is wrong"

No, as usual you have it wrong. The AGW theory has never been substantiated in any way. There is ZERO empirical data to support it. None. You see dear Luddite, the null hypothesis requires you to PROVE your hypothesis. I don't have to do anything but poke holes in your theory. That's why you guys have tried to change the direction of the null hypothesis, which is yet another example of how laughable climatology scientists have become.

 

[westwall]

sad

Yes, it's sad that you pay attention to an advocacy group that is so scientifically incompetent.

 

[westwall]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming

The Geological Society of America's statement on global warming. Now I could go on with the statements from various socieites representing biology, chemisty and other scientific disciplines. But they will all say the same thing. AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

Yes, of course they state that AGW is a fact. Their increased funding is DEPENDENT on their support you twit. Funny how you can point that out when it's the oil companies paying for stuff that helps them but are absolutely blind to it when it comes to AGW.

No matter, the planet is going to get cold, real cold in the coming years and your supporters are melting away at an ever increasing rate. You only have the politicians (who desperately need a carbon tax to continue to fund their lavish spending, which gets them reelected) and incompetent/lazy scientists who have been milking this fraud for decades.

The weight of public knowledge is swinging and will eventually crush you fools like Piltdown Man.